Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Floquenbeam 2

Revi's oppose

1. no, no, no. — regards, Revi 13:44, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

   Well, actually, unless a whole bunch of opposes come out of the woodwork, the community seems to be saying "yes, yes, yes". Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:04, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

   I thought this place was for my opinion on the candidate, not yours or the community's? My opinion might differ from the majority, but I am going to say what I want to say. Thank you. — regards, Revi 21:22, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

   I do not know that the bureaucrats would give much weight to this oppose that does not explain your reasoning. Could you explain? --Rschen7754 00:17, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

   Rschen7754, is the reasoning not abundantly clear? StudiesWorld (talk) 11:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

   In what way could the reasoning behind the unadorned words "no, no, no" possibly be "abundantly clear". Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:22, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

   Beyond My Ken, Maybe to not users not aware of WP:FRAM, but I'm sure it's abundantly clear to the crats. —CYBERPOWER (Chat) 17:42, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

   What does this mean? "No, no, no, he doesn't contribute to articles?" "No, no, no, he doesn't have a good temperament?" "No, no, no, his username is awful?" "No, no, no, he undid a OFFICE action"? etc. I see this as an oppose without reasoning. --Rschen7754 18:15, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

   Agreed - as it stands it's a meaningless oppose and should be disregarded by the crats.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:05, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

   @Beyond My Ken: @Pawnkingthree: Why are you two so eager to discount oppose votes? pbp 16:09, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

   I would simply like voters to read WP:RFA before they vote: In nominations where consensus is unclear, detailed explanations behind Support or Oppose comments will have more impact than positions with no explanations or simple comments such as "yep" and "no way".-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:24, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

• Before anyone else comments, can we try to be respectful of -revi? Not all projects require reasoning on RfAs and they are pretty much straight-up votes (even more than en.wiki, which is also basically a vote where 'crats use some magical math to award "weight") -revi is one of the stewards who is more engaged on en.wiki, but it is not the project he is most active on, so he may not be as familiar with our custom of RfA opposes needing to be longer than the supports. Knowing him fairly well, he probably has a well-thought out reason and his oppose isn't "meaningless". Also before I get accused of being a WMF "loyalist" you'll note I'm supporting this RfA. I think the questions of this vote were asked in good faith, and I don't think they are rude, but I did want to point this out before this talk section gets more comments. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:43, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

In order for others to understand said reason you actually have to give it. 2001:4898:80E8:1:B58F:FD5C:3EF:4D2D (talk) 19:51, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

• Treat it as Per Leaky caldron. I don't intend to visit this RfA after saving this. This is not something worth my time and I don't want to further waste my time on writing more stuff here. — regards, Revi 19:52, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

  This comment seems potentially more chidlish than the first. Killiondude (talk) 04:19, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

  (+1). ~ Winged Blades^Godric 15:36, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

  Indeed, if someone says "Per X" as an oppose rationale, it is childish, but the hordes of people who support "Per nom" or don't even provide a rationale are perfectly okay. Please find better things to do than badger opposers, especially when you have nothing credible to say. SD0001 (talk) 08:10, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

  Especially as it is per me! :) Leaky caldron (talk) 08:17, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

  Revi said something other than that, too. You can change your glasses and nicely fuck off. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 15:08, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

  Alright guys cool it. -revi has now made clear their rationale. —CYBERPOWER (Chat) 17:45, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

• I pick on @Ajraddatz: a lot since we were both Wikidata oversighters and then stewards, and my comments to @-revi: are in a similar vein (we were both stewards but not at the same time, and Wikidata admins). That all being said, showing up as a steward on a wiki that you purposefully disassociate yourself with, opposing a high-profile RFA with no other reason besides "No, no, no", and leaving the dismissive comment above is going to generate some controversy, to say the least. (In regards to Tony's comment above, steward confirmations do require comments for opposes and purposefully disregard opposes without comments). --Rschen7754 16:58, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
• Personally, I find that if one can "support per nom", one should also be able to "oppose per nom". The above seems to be that. Samsara 10:15, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Support 135

re User:Dlohcierekim support. I noticed that he has at least 3 times typed into his "support" comment, and since I felt that I wanted to add to mine as well (over and over again depending on what others were saying), I thought I'd break out a section with some thoughts.

• There are people on both sides that I respect highly - and I suspect that is true of many folks.
• Answer 16: I'm not sure it's saying what some folks may think it' saying. I got the impression that at least one person felt that it marginalized people who were harassed, and that's not the way I read it at all. To me it was simply QUESTIONING what's going on politically that we don't necessarily see.
• I think there are some very good points being made in the oppose section (I'm in the support section, and short of some shocking revelation I'll remain there). There are comments that are valid. One of the reasons I remain in support is that I honestly believe that Floq doesn't usually turn a blind eye to criticism, and he makes adjustments accordingly.
• One of the big ones for me are comments like (and I paraphrase) 'I'm so glad this is behind us', 'We just want to move on', etc. Nope, I don't think so. I do not think this "thing" is behind us, and as far as moving on - I suspect that this little rebellion that the community threw at the WMF simply slowed down the changes, rather than changed the direction.

My guess is that we've just been made aware of the fact that the WMF intends on taking a more active role in administration on WP-EN (I can't help but link to Big Brother (Nineteen Eighty-Four) given the original "no appeal" and "you can't see the evidence".) Considering the amount of money the we are generating (and let's face it, wp-en carries the bulk of that honor) in donations, it's likely unavoidable that management take an active interest in the product. (even if a lot of them have no clue how the product is produced ... sorry, I digress) ... Anyway, the WMF must show something for all the money they're receiving (and travel expenses aren't really quite enough). On the other hand - there are much less noble efforts than reducing harassment, or whatever poor administrative behavior they are monitoring. I suspect our best hope is for a set of checks and balances. Arbcom, voting people into management positions etc.

So to conclude, I don't think this RfA, or the returns of some of the admins, or the sekrit Arbcom hearing are the end. I hope they are not the beginning of the end, but perhaps they are the end of the beginning. Let's hope we do have a say in this "2030 mission" they're driving towards, and let's hope it doesn't end like Thelma & Louise. — Ched :  ?  — 15:32, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I very much agree, Ched, I think we're at the start of a governance change. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:56, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to be optimistic Boing!, but if the Fram situation is an indication of their intentions and abilities, optimism is rather impossible. If indeed this was a trial balloon, then it was made of lead and I foresee a very bleak future. IMO they didn't really concede much with "allowing" Arbcom to review some censored reports. In fact I think they have been either very poor at reading the room so to speak - or they simply don't care. Either way, it's hard to stay positive - but I'll try. — Ched :  ?  — 17:13, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

"Just asking questions" is not a value neutral act. The question presupposes that a conspiracy theory is valid. Also, I've read Nineteen Eighty-Four twice and I don't remember the part where a character is banned from a website owned by a company (which is far from a monopoly). I also don't remember the WMF asking us to do a two minute hate, taking away any of our human rights, and if there's a grand total of one disappeared person (who in fact is still allowed to post on other WMF projects) then that's not really the same thing as Big Brother at all. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 06:53, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Only twice Bilorv? I first read it only 8 years after its 1949 publication. And many times since. The WMF is a strange and untransparent institution and worthy of comparison with many of the dystopian novels by highly acclaimed authors. Perhaps you should read some Golding and Huxley too. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:59, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

The WMF is not a state entity. The comparison is simply a nonsense one. You only have to glance at our Wikipedia article to see the book's themes are about government overreach and totalitarianism (defined by us as "a political concept of a mode of government that ..."). As I said, the WMF is not even close to a monopoly, and certainly not a recognised state, so its actions do not relate to human rights or government oppression in any way. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 23:54, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm surprised at that Bilorv, with your background I thought you would have understood. Here's a word for you to look up. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:26, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Well that's why I emphasised the "not a monopoly" bit in both of my comments. The scary part of Nineteen Eighty-Four is the all-controlling influence the entity has, but here, what's the WMF controlling access to—someone's hobby, or a website? Neither of those things are fundamental to somebody's life in the way that the totalitarianism in Nineteen Eighty-Four is. If the WMF block you, you haven't become an unmentionable who's disappeared off the face of the earth. Your life isn't over and you're not being horrendously tortured. You just have to find a different hobby. People take Wikipedia far too seriously sometimes. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 08:56, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

If not this admin then...

History and context matter.

This is an admin of long standing experience and background, well respected, who even in the latest WMF debacle has shown integrity whether what he did was liked or not, and its fair to say his action was not something he wanted to do but rather felt compelled to do. This is the context of this RfA. What in any of this indicates someone who would not make a good admin. The issues in the WMF situation is NOT whether we liked what he did but whether what he did shows us the more universal rather than the personal, whether his actions show that he had the best of the encyclopedia at heart and whether he acted with integrity. This is one instance in a long career as an admin. How does this one situation acted on with integrity cancel out years of strong admin work. I don't see that it can or should. Admins are human beings. We cannot expect so–called perfection of anyone, but we must have integrity even under the most difficult circumstances and we had that. A thought. Littleolive oil (talk) 16:01, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

A point of view, rather. Another might be that, based on the reaction on the project page, and based on the rapid request for re-adminship, the fellow made a guess that there would be no real consequences, and no particular moral courage or integrity was required. Qwirkle (talk) 16:11, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

"...no real consequences ..." ... I'm guessing that Floq has a better read on RfA and Wiki than that .... but I guess that's not for me to say. — Ched :  ?  — 16:16, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

There are plenty of opposes that don't hinge on the FRAM issue but on the candidate's general temperament, attitude to this whole process despite nominating themselves, lack of engagement in the community writ-large and any content work in general, etc. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:19, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

It's all point of view in the most literal sense of the phrase! I suppose I am suggesting a change in the point of viewing. Littleolive oil (talk) 16:41, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I mean that only Floq can say what he thinks (or guesses). — Ched :  ?  — 17:16, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Black Kite's support

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

1. Support per User:SD0001, User:Jusdafax, User:Bilorv and others. [[User_talk:|Black Kite (talk)]] 22:48, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

   Kindly don't ping me again the next time you want to act out. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 23:18, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

   Perhaps next time you could try opposing without including personal attacks, then. Black Kite (talk) 10:36, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

   @Bilorv: Don't worry, troll votes are discounted. PackMecEng (talk) 14:36, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

   I presume it's the Trump thing with people like you, isn't it? I supported because of the completely uninformed abuse that editors like the three I mentioned are aiming at Floquenbeam. But no, it's OK to do that in your brain, isn't it? It's completely OK to abuse people, you'll get away with it? Is that right. Well in that case, let me join the party - if you're calling me a troll, you can fuck off. Black Kite (talk) 14:42, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

   If you believe I made a personal attack you can report me to ANI, Arbcom or the WMF if you like. They'll all find that I didn't. I commented on an editor's behaviour with specific reference to how that behaviour affected whether they should be an admin, which is what RfA is about. Opining that someone should be given admin tools is certainly not an effective way at combating what you believe to be abuse, but obviously you don't mean the word "abuse" seriously and through your childish hyperbole you're disrespecting and degrading people who have actually been abused. Fine behaviour from an admin, but this site sees worse on a daily basis. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 15:45, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

   You accuse BK of engaging in childish hyperbole and in the same breath, mention of fine behavior. LOL. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 15:51, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

   Yes, I do. Not sure which bit you're struggling with—perhaps the difference between hyperbole and sarcasm—or perhaps you actually do think falsely accusing people of "abuse" and telling users to "fuck off" is fine behaviour. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 17:10, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

   "Uninformed abuse"? Oh well. Kill me now. SD0001 (talk) 15:57, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

   @Black Kite: Can you explain how the opposes in question are abuse? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:34, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

   Certainly. Bilorv called Floq "attention-seeking and disruptive", SD0001 called Floq a "drama queen", and Jusdafax called them "clearly unfit for the mop" whilst suggesting that anyone supporting the nom was "appalling" (with no actual justification given). We don't need shit like that - simply explain why you don't agree with the nom and leave it there. Otherwise you're just making yourself look poor. Black Kite (talk) 23:22, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

   Otherwise you're just making yourself look poor. Kind of like posting a support vote citing 3 people that opposed. While pinging them to rub it in. Kind of like that? PackMecEng (talk) 02:52, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

   So opposing is OK, but opposing opposers is not? Logic failure. Black Kite (talk) 09:42, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

   But that is not what you were doing. You were being a troll, don't be that guy at a RFA. PackMecEng (talk) 14:51, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

   I thought I told you to fuck off last time you called me a troll? This isn't turning into a learning experience for you, is it? Black Kite (talk) 14:56, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

   Eh, I'm not wrong though am I? PackMecEng (talk) 14:59, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

   Well, yes, obviously you're wrong. You may disagree with me, but you don't get to call me a troll because I disagree with some of the opposes. Since you've now stated this three times, hopefully you'll desist. Black Kite (talk) 15:35, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

   Is that why you think called you a troll? No, as I explained before it is how you did it. You are free to support for reasons opposes gave. The part where you were a troll is when you just listed their names, pinged them, and gave no explanation. PackMecEng (talk) 15:41, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

   WTF? So it's OK to oppose "per X", but not to support "per X" if they are opposes? Bizarre. Black Kite (talk) 15:48, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

   Wow, just wow. Okay then, good luck with all that my friend. PackMecEng (talk) 18:14, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

   We don't need shit like that - simply explain why you agree with the nom and leave it there. – Levivich 14:01, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

   But you don't mind BU ROB13 pulling the same fucking stut, Levivich? ——SerialNumber54129 14:06, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

   Serial Number 54129, I don't know which stunt of Rob's you're referring to? I don't remember Rob !voting support "per" opposes in an RfA? – Levivich 14:36, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

   Many people have supported RfAs purely to "balance out" what they thought were unfair opposes. It's more honest to actually say that rather than a bland "Support", IMO. Black Kite (talk) 14:42, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

   If you think that calling someone "clearly unfit for the mop" is "abuse", then you must think that Fram was REALLY abusive, because they've said much worse ("tonedeaf powergrabbers", "Just crawl into a corner and shut up until the community asks you to do something", etc.). You can disagree with those three oppose !votes, but to call them "uninformed abuse" is hyperbole, and telling them to "simply explain why you don't agree and leave it there", after making the support !vote you made, is hypocrisy. – Levivich 14:58, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

   Absolutely not - those three opposes could easily have been made without the incivility. As I said previously, I realise we're now in the Trumpian "I can say what I like and there's nothing you can do about it" era, but there's just no need for it. Black Kite (talk) 15:35, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

   Not all of us have the literary skills to express a reasonably strong opposition while remaining within the narrow limits of civility defined by you. If you seriously think calling someone "attention-seeking and disruptive" or "clearly unfit for the mop" with evidence in an RfA oppose section is uncivil, knock yourself off. Seeing that you are now making one hilarious comment after another "So opposing is OK, but opposing opposers is not? Logic failure" and "WTF? So it's OK to oppose "per X", but not to support "per X" if they are opposes? Bizarre", you have clearly run out of arguments. May I suggest WP:DROPTHESTICK? SD0001 (talk) 19:02, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

   "One hilarious comment after another". I think you just proved my point, actually. Well done. Black Kite (talk) 21:06, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Can all y'all just knock it off already? 28bytes (talk) 21:08, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

28bytes Oh yeah, why not, I'll just accept being called a troll three times whilst absolutely no-one does fucking anything about it, shall I? Actually, fuck it. Black Kite (talk) 21:12, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

@Black Kite: No, you should not have to put up with being called a troll three times (or even once). Nevertheless, I'd feel on shaky ground to sanction PackMecEng for this single (albeit repeated) instance of a personal attack. The timesink of arguing that at ANI would be something I'd not relish. I am happy to go on record as calling on PackMecEng to withdraw those remarks, and I strongly suggest they do so, perhaps when the initial fervour of these exchanges has diminished. If they choose not to, then my advice would be to make a mental note of the behaviour, in case it is ever repeated. I am truly sorry I can't offer you more than moral support at this point, but I sincerely do offer that. --RexxS (talk) 21:30, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

"Thou shalt not call an admin any name, else admin buddies shall extract a dear price." But an admin, after blocking me for getting upset at a user calling me "narcissist" on a pubic board, can respond to my inquiry re the block by opining that the name-calling user was correct, and that indeed I am a "narcissist". Oh joy. And no user on the marvelous WP stepped in to even comment, let alone do something. (I even complained to Jimbo, when he came to my user Talk on another matter.) Cry cry cry, try and walk in a reg user's shoes for a day, as it seems so clear your experiences are disassociated from it, or you see a different world that admins live by, a lower threshold of tolerance not higher, while guidelines state the opposite. Oh, yeah, and let's kick Donald Trump for all of this, for sure fault must originate with him. --IHTS (talk) 22:01, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely ridiculous. So it is okay for someone to repeatedly tell someone to fuck off, while it is not ok for the other to remark that their vote is trollish, when it indeed is? It should also be noted that saying someone's comment is trollish (which is what happened here) is a lot different from calling them a troll. SD0001 (talk) 04:31, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

• SD0001, Jusdafax, Bilorv, and PackMecEng, between you (and others) you have turned this RfA into an absolute classic example of all that is rotten with the process. I concur entirely with Black Kite and RexxS. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:44, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

That is only your opinion. Please don't disguise it as an authoritarian proclamation. SD0001 (talk) 04:31, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

SD0001, I stand 100% on what I said. It's a fact. Look at the mess it is. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:37, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

RfAs will stop becoming a mess if people stop pestering opposers or making poorly-grounded allegations of PA against them. I don't see any opposers badgering those in support, even when there are lots of dubious claims being made such as Floq having "helped" in the dispute, which could potentially be badgered upon. SD0001 (talk) 08:19, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Daniel Case's question

Daniel, you asked:

I would also like to ask everyone supporting this...: 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)

By "know everything about this" are you referring to Fram's actions that led to their ban, or Floquenbeam unblocking Fram etc? If the latter (which IMO is the only relevant bit for this RFA), I believe all the actions have been in the open, on-wiki, and well-documented enough for me and other supporters to be aware of them.
Speaking for myself, even if the arbcom finds Fram to be worthy of a ban, that won't affect my opinion of Floq's actions since the primary objection to Fram being banned was related to the process by which that ban was instituted (by WMF; without Fram being made aware of the complaints or being allowed to respond; non-appealability) rather than the conclusion of that process per se. If a proper process reaches the same conclusion that would not post hoc justify the flawed process.
Perhaps I'm missing your point though. So can you spell out what future revelations you envision that may be relevant to the supporter's !vote at this RFA? To be clear, I am not questioning your, or any other opposer's, !vote. Opinions about Floq's actions can understandably differ; my question is regarding the "unknowns" you talked about. Abecedare (talk) 20:44, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

• It's not the first time someone has darkly insinuated that Fram must have done something Really, Really Bad to have earned that Office Action, and that any who oppose or question the Office Action will have blood on their hands, and recoil in disgust once we find out what the Really, Really Bad thing is, and feel guilty for having questioned or opposed the Office Action.
  Now, these people won't actually tell us what this Really, Really Bad thing is, so we're left to speculate that it's something horrific like sexual assault, never mind that the WMF would have (rightly) globally and permanently banned anyone who'd done that, and they certainly wouldn't be deferring to ArbCom to handle the case as they are now doing.
  So in addition to the dark insinuations directed at Fram, we get second-hand "guilt by association" insinuations directed at the people (like Floquenbeam) who stood against the ban, and now even third-hand insinuations directed at the people who are supporting Floquenbeam at RfA. 28bytes (talk) 22:43, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

• @Daniel Case:, if your question had been attached to a neutral !vote then perhaps I'd have given it a bit of weight. As it is I have to ask this question in return: If NOTHING beyond what we now know (beyond the specifics of user names) is found are you, and by extension I fear too many people in the [oppose] column going to feel foolish? Or is the desire to spout the corporate mantra sufficient justification to malign a colleague by innuendo. (back in the day we'd call for WP:NPA, but I guess that depends on which side you're on). If you feel you know something - then just spit it out.

Now I do consider you a (usually) very good admin., and would give a great deal of thought to your question. If you would have come here to the talk page to ask such a loaded question, couched with such false dichotomy then perhaps I'd have considered your question with weight. The thing is, this is a RfA for Floq, not a referendum on WP:OA or Fram. Trying to twist a RfA !vote such as you have is really not a direction I thought you'd take. Perhaps next we'll see oppose votes from User:WMFOffice and various members of T&S in an effort to push this into a discretionary range. If you think that's an unfair comment, I ask you to consider the fact that the policy for Office actions has already been moved off our local project (changed from policy to information page), and on to meta. (see: Wikimedia Foundation official policy).

So to answer your question: No I don't think I know everything about this, but I have seen enough that I am comfortable with my Support (not a)vote. I also very much agree with what Abecedare and 28 have posted. — Ched :  ?  — 01:00, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

• Daniel Case, I also don't know what you know that I don't know that I'm supposed to know. Drmies (talk) 01:06, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

• But on the flip side of the coin, if it turns out that ArbCom vacates the ban because they feel that it was unnecessary, then some of the opposers might feel foolish too. I certainly feel foolish for supporting some users for RFA that are now globally banned by WMF for good reason. It's a risk that you take when you vote at RFA. If you don't want to take the risk, don't vote at all. --Rschen7754 01:28, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Wow

I thought my question would be seen as purely rhetorical, largely since the supports are going to carry the day. To boil it down to something that should not have given rise to a talk page discussion, I will say again: There may well be more than we know here. I don't know that there is, but I don't know that there isn't. So for that reason I opposed. Daniel Case (talk) 03:54, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

"May well"... Daniel, with due credit to your tenure, your statement is unfounded and a personal attack on Floq. If you don't have evidence, stop insinuating and strike off such insinuations. Lourdes 07:07, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't see how it's an attach on Floq. If anything, it's an attack on Fram. Daniel's just saying (wrongly, in my view) that Floq acted incorrectly, since he didn't have all the information.—Chowbok ☠ 07:37, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Behind the rethorical question of User:Daniel Case, there may well be more than we know here. Exercise: write down three different examples of a rethorical may well that could explain why Daniel Case don't exert his rethoric against the so-called Thrust & Safety Department, but only against Floq. Pldx1 (talk) 10:11, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I didn't take it as rhetorical. I took it as a serious question and request for response. No, I don't know everything, and I don't think anyone does at this point. !Voting oppose out of fear you'll be on the wrong side of history because you don't know all the facts is no better than !voting suupport because you don't know all the facts and don't care. I !voted support because I believe this candidate is still a net positive. The fact I probably can never know whether his action was helpful or hurtful doesn't change that. The fact I don't know whether Fram's ban was a reasonable office action doesn't change that, either. --valereee (talk) 13:10, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

• @Daniel Case: I took your question to be sincere and replied accordingly. Thanks for the clarification. As for the repetition of the may well be: I am not a fan of unfalsifiable extra-terrestrial teapots but understand that emotions at this RFA are flying high and leading to rhetorical excesses. So I won't push the issue any further. Abecedare (talk) 15:49, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

OK, one last statement: In my !vote I incorporated by reference Bilorv and Juliancolton's; perhaps I should have more clearly qualified my statement with their points that Floq should have waited longer before doing this. If this fails and in six months he wants to ask again and nothing new has emerged about this whole mess, I'd be fine with that (I might not support, but I wouldn't oppose). But at this point it seems premature to give him the tools back for what other users have noted is, whatever we think of why he did it, a crossing of the Godzilla Threshold that cannot be taken lightly. Daniel Case (talk) 16:31, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Something so serious—that it cannot be taken lightly at all—is backed up by...a meme from TV Tropes?! Priceless. ——SerialNumber54129 16:46, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Personal comments

• (1) To the extent that this RfA has developed into a referendum on WP:FRAMGATE, it's interesting to see that the division between the two sides is roughly what I thought i was during the height of the discussion on that subject. That is, the division of the community is approximately 4:1, which belies the supposition that there was a huge unrepresented "silent majority" which was not expressing itself in the debate.

• (2) It's rather disconcerting to see the number of editors who are still interpreting FRAMGATE as a harassment-related issue, when, of course, it was essentially a "home rule" issue about who should be allowed to make judgments on possible harassing behavior on en.wiki, a community-elected Arbitration Committee, or an unelected panel of WMF bureaucrats essentially answerable to no one. The step that Floq took was a necessary one in the drive to apply public pressure to T&S and the WMF Board, which ended up with our elected officials being able to make the final determination. The question was never whether harassment would be judged or not, but who was to do the judging.

• (3) If the ratio here stays at around 4:1, it's likely to put the final numbers into the discretionary zone. If that happens, I'll be interested to see how the 'crats deal with that in the light of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RexxS, in which the candidate was promoted with 64% support (i.e. below the discretionary range), and in the 'crat chat at the time the opinion was expressed [1] that "It has also been somewhat customary, for better or worse, to extend somewhat of a leniency with respect to the numbers, for editors with a longer history on the project."

• (4) In the RexxS case, a number of oppose votes were discounted or down-rated by the 'crats as being of "questionable or no merit", which certainly raises the question about how much weight the 'crats will give in this case to those who voted "oppose" because they incorrectly interpret Floq's action as being an indication that he is soft on harassment.

• (5) Those who are willing to let a fine administrator go based on their ideological preconceptions and inaccurate interpretation of a brave and WP:BOLD action, which was fully justified by WP:IAR, should take a close look at their prejudices, and ask themselves if they are really doing the right thing for the project.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:57, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

To (1), I think it's worth mentioning that (ballpark figure) 90% of active productive contributors to Wikipedia are not aware of Framgate. So it might be better to frame the position as 4:1:45. I actually believed the division amongst those who knew about the situation to be much more skewed, like 19:1. (I suppose it depends what division you're talking about; I and probably you would class me in the minority camp, but I strongly disagree with what the WMF did. If the division is "who supports the WMF's action" then it's virtually 0:1.) What I believe we're seeing, if you look at who is supporting and who is opposing, is this: a specific community of editors at the intersection of lengthy service time and interest in conduct disputes (archetypally people who've had adminship since 2005) feel strongly about the issue and oppose the WMF and support WJBScribe and Floquenbeam's actions. Of the silent majority editors who have not been admins since 2005, summoned to the RfA only through the watchlist notice or chance encounter, a good proportion of them oppose Floquenbeam's reinstatement as admin (and perhaps have little to no opinion on the rest of Framgate). Hence the huge burst of support from the faction particularly active in the behind-the-scenes areas of the site, followed by a steady decline as they are balanced out by editors who aren't online every hour, don't check out every RfA or usually spend their editing time on article work. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 08:26, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, I'll be clear that while I do believe that Floq was permitting harassment, I don't believe that they are soft on harassment. I think that they acted in the way that they thought best, but that was very risky from a prevention of harassment perspective. StudiesWorld (talk) 10:45, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

RfAs, like the FRAM page, do not represent the broad makeup of editors who participate on Wikipedia. There are currently, something like 400 votes here, yet there are tens of thousands of editors on this project. I believe at the mid-point, someone calculated that about 400 editors had voiced opinions on the FRAM page (not all in support of Fram) and, again, that is a small subset of editors here.

And, I would bet big, that if you looked at the names of some folks who voted in this RfA, there are dozens and dozens of editors whose names are not familiar to you. While this has been an active RfA, I looked for some names of people whose vote I wanted to assess and expected to see here and I don't see them here either. Those who participate here are a small group of editors who have a strong opinion on this. The majority of editors on Wikipedia either do not know about RfAs or the Fram situation or they don't care. They just want to get on with editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that is all true, but it doesn't really change the import of my comments. It's a truism about this place that only a small minority of active editors actually participate in community discussions. My observation is that FRAMGATE brought out many more editors than is usual, probably the largest number that I can recall in my 14 years here (but, of course, I can't possibly be aware of everything). While some posited that there was a "silent majority" which backed their particular POV, we really can't say anything about the editors who don't participate, because... well, because they didn't participate and make their views known. We can assume that their views would be roughly proportional to the numbers of editors who did participate, but, absent a scientifically-controlled survey, we just cannot know, so it's best to make no assumptions about them at all, and not assume that there was a "silent majority" of any kind. What we know is who contributed, what they said, and in what numbers, and -- without actually counting (what an onerous task that would be) my comments are based on my perceptions of what that was. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:48, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

ZXCVBNM's oppose

1. 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)

   The WMF is not our boss. The fact that they (and apparently quite a few folks in the oppose section, some of whom do in fact collect money from them) thought otherwise is why the Fram debacle happened in the first place. I'm happy for the WMF to be the community's partner. Boss, not so much. 28bytes (talk) 02:26, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

   So the WMF is "our boss"?!?!? Wow. Just wow. That really says it all. Carrite (talk) 02:45, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

   I mean... yeah pretty much. We agree to their terms of use, not the other way around. They can "fire" us, we cannot do the same. PackMecEng (talk) 03:17, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

   From a realistic POV, much of WMF's powers are tantamount to legal fiction. We can in theory legally just as well fork if we're unhappy with WMF (or more likely retire one by one). WMF can obviously "fire" us en masse if they want to, but that would be project suicide. Admin resignations from this situation would already take 2 years to replenish by RfA. In reality, we do have room for negotiation, and I think creating this mess here, whether for purposes of FUD, protection of Fram, or drawing attention to process and transparency, was ultimately a successful way of anchoring. Daß Wölf 03:52, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

   You are correct. It goes into the just because you can do something does not make it a good idea. They could certainly tell everyone here where to shove it, but that would not be a good idea. Stuff like that goes both ways though. I think 28bytes is pretty close, it is best for everyone involved for the relationship to be closer to a partnership. PackMecEng (talk) 04:09, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

   Alright, technically they aren't a boss since Wikipedia is a volunteer organization. The are definitely not the be all end all of every decision. However, that kind of behavior just strikes me as immature and cliquish, especially since it was to defend their buddy who while a good admin in many situations, obviously needed to take a step back from the monitor. Also "there are too few admins" is not a counter argument. If the amount of admins truly drops to a low level that results in problems, there are counter solutions to that._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:37, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

   Moved to talk. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:52, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

• A better comparison would be a political party and its members. Parties can remove their members, but everytime they do it has a direct damaging effect on them. The members can also drive internal pressure and push for new rules in a more direct fashion than employees. And finally, political party supporters would not be impressed to hear the party saying that it's the boss of them. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:50, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

It seems to me...

...that most of the opposes are basically arguing "we should blindly trust the unexplained decisions made by the authorities". Because that's historically always worked out so well, I guess.—Chowbok ☠ 10:46, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Chowbok, that is an oversimplification. I think that almost all of the opposes would agree that the WMF acted incorrectly and should have dealt with the issue through normal community channels. However, that doesn't mean that we think that the correct way to rectify the situation was to reverse their action when discussions towards a diplomatic resolution were underway. StudiesWorld (talk) 10:49, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I went to look at the opposes so I could quote some of them to you; they are, in fact, pretty much arguing that the WMF did the right thing. In fact, the very first "oppose" vote said "Floquenbeam acted in a way that overturned a decision intended to prevent harassment on the project". Now who wrote that again?—Chowbok ☠ 10:54, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Out of 72 opposes so far WMF is barely mentioned. A few times to deprecate their action, while not supporting the candidate's reaction to it. I am not seeing the opposes stance you are claiming exists. Leaky caldron (talk) 11:12, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Chowbok, I wrote that and I stand by that. I do not think that they did the right thing, but I think that they acted with the intent "to prevent harassment on the project" and overturning it was inappropriate, without further discussion. StudiesWorld (talk) 11:20, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

@StudiesWorld: '... when discussions towards a diplomatic resolution were underway .. ' .. even after Floquenbeam unblocked Fram (with the whole set of reblocks, desysops and resysops there), and over 20 admins resigning there was not a single word coming from WMF or their representatives, nor from 'our' board members. May I remind you that until now we do have a case by ArbCom, but it is still utterly unclear whether there is any en.wikipedia legitimacy to Fram's ban? We condemn child pornography to a level that we agree to immediately ban, and that is being done by WMF; we condemn copyright violations and do ban on the more persistent varieties of that. We do NOT have a policy in place that would allow a full ban (or even block) for people who are uncivil, harrassing, etc. (we maybe should have (though that is not an easy one and I don't know if we can have), but we don't). Fram seems to be banned for something that WMF has a policy on, but we don't know whether we have a policy stating the same and WMF has not been coming forward. So I don't know where you see that a 'diplomatic resolution [was] underway'? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:29, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

@Dirk Beetstra, while I obviously don't think the WMF was in the right here (note who made comment #1 at WP:FRAMBAN), We do NOT have a policy in place that would allow a full ban (or even block) for people who are uncivil, harrassing, etc. is flat-out incorrect. Not only is Engaging in harassment, threats, stalking, spamming, or vandalism explicitly listed in the terms of use as one of the reasons for which T&S can drop the banhammer ("We reserve the right to exercise our enforcement discretion with respect to the above terms" in WMF-ese), it's actually the first item on the list of possible reasons—above child pornography, deliberately disseminating viruses, copyright violation, online grooming of minors etcetera; and it's been the first item in that list since the very first draft of the document that became the Terms of Use, it's not a case of Jan Eissfeldt slipping it in after the event to retrospectively cover his back. ‑ Iridescent 2 11:39, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

@Iridescent 2: yes .. WMF has it that strong, with we I was talking about en.wikipedia's policies and guidelines, which are not so stringent (though it is not so that we, eventually, would not block/ban users who do go too far). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:07, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

In my view, WMF went in with a sledgehammer when a scalpel was needed. They launched the shitstorm, but I can't help but see that precipitous actions like Floquenbeam's turned it into a Cat 5 shit typhoon. This RFA is not a relitigation of Framgate but rather a way to seek whether members of the community still hold confidence in Floq's ability to carry out responsibilities as an administrator. While I have the utmost respect for our long serving admins, but Floq's actions, and statement, placed great doubt in mind as to their suitability to be made an admin again. Blackmane (talk) 15:03, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I’d just like to respond to the opposers who are saying that Floq acted “rashly”, “emotionally”, “recklessly”, as a “drama queen” when he unblocked Fram. The opposite was the case. This was back in the early days when WMF was blowing us off, totally ignoring us and our questions. Floq thought about the situation and reached a decision: that the issue was not about what Fram had or hadn’t done, it was about the way WMF was handling it. Having decided to take a bold and provocative action he was totally calm and transparent about it. He announced his intention that after a stated period of time (I think it was a day or two) he would unblock Fram if the WMF didn’t stop stonewalling and start responding to the community. By becoming the first person to take a concrete action to demonstrate the community’s unhappiness over the way WMF was acting, he was well aware of the risk to himself. He could have been blocked, desysopped, global banned - everything was on the table. A lot of people tried to talk him out of it, saying both "give them more time" and "think of the risk to yourself", but he clung to his resolution. During his stated time period WMF tried once again to respond, giving another non-answer answer, so he carried through. Turned out the outcome for him wasn’t so bad. WMF punished him but the community rallied around him, other people started to emulate him, and apparently WMF finally realized they were going to have to respond to the community’s unhappiness.

Don’t get me wrong. I have no doubt that we owe our current, generally accepted solution to DocJames and Jimbo, acting as our official representatives to the WMF. (P.S. plus probably some other people we don't know about.) I believe they pressed the issue, privately, while all the ranting and raving was going on here. They urged us to be patient. But IMO they could not have accomplished that outcome without the leverage provided by the rebellion of many administrators here, going beyond mere complaints to risk or resign their position in protest. That rebellion was inspired by Floq, and I believe it was the final straw that persuaded the WMF they would have to work with us.

He wound up almost back where he started. He could have asked for a resysop at BN but (again being fully transparent) he decided to take it to the community. Another principled stand. I sincerely hope that the community won’t punish him for having taken a stand, when no-one else dared, which I believe helped to break the impasse with WMF and set us on the path to a reasonable accommodation. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:25, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

In 3 words; I disagree, completely. Leaky caldron (talk) 18:51, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

@MelanieN: thank you for posting that. It's a great summary of the situation we are in now and how we got here. 28bytes (talk) 18:55, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, MelanieN for that summary. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:30, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, MelanieN. I agree with every word you wrote. Perhaps the only point missing was the state of the debate at the time Floq make their mind up to act: the strong consensus that had emerged among the community that the ban had been imposed out-of-process and was of questionable validity. I believe it was the clarity of that position that persuaded Floq to unblock, and certainly not just their own inclination. --RexxS (talk) 20:54, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @MelanieN: I actually think you summed up the situation very accurately - thank you. It is certainly how I perceived events unfolding. Yes, WMF handled the situation re Fram very badly indeed. But for me (and I suspect many others) this RfA is not about WMF. It's a re-RFA about Floquenbeam, who knew what he was doing, yet ironically it is now he who, in turn, has handled this RFA very badly indeed. Had he really wanted full community support he should have chosen his words and his timing of this RfA more carefully, and not treated the !voting community here with such arrogance or contempt. I'm sure we'd have urged any other editor to withdraw, had they approached an RfA in the same cavalier manner. That was my sole reason for opposing now, and it remains so. It has zilch to do with WMF/Fram/IAR/Harassment, or any other reason that those keen to downplay all the Oppose !votes might suggest. In 6 months time, and with a different attitude, I'd almost certainly be supporting him. But definitely not right now. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:02, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

And I see my edit conflict was with RexxS, who did receive some flak over the timing of his recent RfA, yet by his responses and respectful approach, showed he took the RfA seriously. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:09, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

@MelanieN: If he had stopped where he started - the single action - your up-sum would be fairly accurate. But you have disregarded, perhaps to justify your central argument, the subsequent actions I would characterise more as "me, me, me..". Demanding at BN to be reinstated, demanding to be joined as a party on the WJBScribe Arbcom case, havering about reapplying here only a few days ago, before making this wholly unnecessary RfA and then treating the community to this arrogant spectacle, generating more fandom drama about himself, instead of a contrite, request in a couple of months. That is why I disagree with you. Leaky caldron (talk) 21:29, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Way to bend over backwards to WP:ABF. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:09, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

@Leaky caldron: In all fairness to Floq, Rob was the one who added him as a party to Reversion of office actions. The most Floq said at first about being a party was WJBscribe didn't add me as a party, but I probably am. A few hours later, it was already done. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:47, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

@MJL: Please allow me to disagree with you. He effectively "asked" to be made a party [2]. It was at his insistence - it was wholly unnecessary. It inflamed the situation. What someone subsequently did per that request is neither here or there. It was initiated by him as an act of, in my opinion, self-aggrandisement to gain more notability in he matter. Followed by this self-immolation: "I don't believe that my unblock of Fram was within local policy, as some are trying to frame it. If there is some loophole I could wiggle through if you parse the words one way or another, I'm not interested in wiggling through it. I thought at the time that it was clearly a violation of local policy, and I knowingly did that per IAR; in extremis, I knowingly broke a rule to improve the encyclopedia." Urgh... Leaky caldron (talk) 07:06, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

And Melanie N: thank you! Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:10, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

@MelanieN:, thank you for such an extraordinary and exceptionally accurate summary. Ironically, even in some of the most traditionally solid and respected democracies, civil disobediance can be highly successful, and is sometimes the only way to precipitate necessary change. When it succeeds, generally an amnesty is called. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:14, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Describing the activities of a noisy minority in it's dispute with an incompetent, self-regarding and largely ineffective top-level umbrella organisation in the manner of the likes of gilet jaune or the Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests is pure hyperbole. And the objective here, IIRC, was not to precipitate change - it was to prevent change. Leaky caldron (talk) 09:59, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

You recall incorrectly. The WMF, through their change in the definition of what could be done through Office actions and T&S's application of it, had made a significant undiscussed de facto change which allowed T&S to usurp English Wikipedia's historical right to police itself, and then refused to discuss it. If the community hadn't pushed back, hard, that change would have stayed in effect. Floq's action was a necessary first step in that pushback, the goal of which was not to "precipitate change" but to undo an unwarranted power grab.

You're also incorrect in characterizing the portion of the community which was protesting the T&S action as "a noisy minority". The minority were those supporting T&S's action. Bilorv (above) characterizes it as 19:1 opposing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:31, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

You'll be right of course. You're never wrong! But I'll stick to my version - it has the ring of unvarnished, non-tribal truth about it. Leaky caldron (talk) 12:37, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

What is right and wrong?

If you've followed my opinions here/Meta/Commons/Wikidata etc. or my steward term, you know that I generally come down hard on any sort of wheel warring or reverting office actions, so my "Support" might come as a surprise to some. But I think we need to take a step back and figure out why people are calling it "right" or "wrong":

• If we believe that WMF determines what is right or wrong on this site: Okay, legally they do through terms of use. But are we really accepting that they are infallible and can never make a mistake? If they told us that we had to rewrite every article to read like BuzzFeed - would we do it? Or if we had to accept advertising? etc. Does that suddenly become "right"?
  • For those who believe that WMF is infallible - WMF has made similar actions beforehand (see m:Superprotect) and then reversed itself. Choosing to use superprotect to enforce MediaViewer on the German Wikipedia was either right or wrong, so either WMF made a mistake by introducing it, or WMF made a mistake by removing it. In this particular case: either Trust and Safety made a mistake in banning Fram, or the WMF Board made a mistake in allowing the ban to be appealed to ArbCom. Either way, WMF made a mistake. (Of course, a lot of us have opinions on those situations, but I am just taking a purely logical standpoint here).
  • For those who argue that we should respect the WMF's bans because they know more than us - by doing something like this WMF has cheapened their OFFICE actions and made people more skeptical of them, which is unfortunate. I'd say that I am aware of the general reasons why 2/3 of the WMF globally-banned users were banned, and I'd say those are legitimate. Yet as far as these things go, my philosophy is that the more trustworthy a group (say, ArbCom) acts in public around things that are transparent, the more likely they are to be trusted in matters that cannot be made transparent. And I would argue that the converse is true: there are plenty of things I know about WMF that make me scrutinize things like this a lot more closely (such as their incessant focus on English Wikipedia while giving little thought to the 900+ other projects).
  • For those who believe WMF was in the wrong, but object to civil disobedience - I sympathize with that, however there was a general sense that WMF did not care (as evidenced by their tone-deaf messages) and that they would not budge. There was not much hope from WMF Board either, given that they basically rubberstamped superprotect when that happened. There was a general sense of despair, expressed by Floquenbeam themselves even after the controversial unblock. We can argue the "what-ifs" about whether this action by the candidate was necessary for the eventual outcome, but we're never going to know for sure. And pragmatically - I know this is an international audience, but I can tell you that the American Revolution and the Civil Rights Movement would never have happened without civil disobedience.
• If we believe that harassment is "wrong" and it should be stopped at all costs - I mean, I get it. I've gotten the crosswiki death threats and I know that folks have gotten much worse. But on the flip side, we have to ensure that everyone has a right to due process. I shouldn't just be able to accuse an editor I don't like of harassment and have them blocked for a year, no questions asked. There are even those who would consider any sort of constructive and civil criticism about what they wrote in an article to be harassment. I'm all for stopping harassment on Wikimedia - I've certainly had my share of that (and I've seen the nasty things people write in oversighted content, ultimately causing me to wonder about the "goodness" of humanity in general). But it has to be done the right way.
• If we believe that "consensus" ultimately determines what is right or wrong on this site - occasionally consensus gets it wrong, but generally with that many people and that many viewpoints, there is less of a chance for error and it is a lot safer than the first two perspectives.
• If we believe that "right" and "wrong" on this site comes from outside Wikimedia - now we have to ask how someone determines what is right or wrong in real life. I don't think it is on topic to express my views on that here, though I suppose it could be inferred from my userpage. Suffice it to say (since I'm bashing all the other opinions on here) that there are certain ethical lines that I won't cross and certain things that I would consider wheel warring against to the point of losing all my rights and being banned by everybody who can ban users - though Wikimedia would have to really take a turn for the worse for that to even be a possibility.

I'm not talking about the opposes based on temperament or on low mainspace editing here; to be honest, had this been 2012-2014 I likely would have opposed such a RFA. I believe that after their ArbCom term, Floquenbeam had a bit of an awakening and self-reflection of sorts, which is typical for a role like that (I found that true after the year I spent as a steward). Given that and the (at least from my perspective) moderation of their temperament since then, that is why I supported. --Rschen7754 07:45, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

I shouldn't just be able to accuse an editor I don't like of harassment and have them blocked for a year, no questions asked. Why do you believe this is what happened? I don't support the WMF's action but I do find it impossible to believe that they blocked someone based only on the word of one individual—not least because we've heard from Arbcom that it was multiple, independent reports that lead to the block. Do you really mean to suggest that the WMF blocked Fram without looking at any of their contributions and judging whether they were harassment? — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 08:56, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

I am speaking in hypotheticals. --Rschen7754 16:22, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Some hypotheticals don't need to be considered because they're so unlikely. "What if the WMF are actually lizards trying to destroy all information on the planet?" Obviously the WMF will have corroborated the accounts of the users who reported Fram before taking action. Obviously their policy is not to hand out a year-long block automatically to any user that is reported. The WMF are not in the right here, but this "what-if" business doesn't help anyone. Let Arbcom determine if due process was followed. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 17:31, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

It is completely appropriate to present a hypothetical scenario for the purpose of making an argument. --Rschen7754 17:36, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Levivich's oppose timeline

Posting this here in support of my oppose !vote so as not to fill up the main RfA page.

• WMFOffice blocked Fram on June 10 at 17:41 (10am San Fran time). [3].
• Half an hour later, Floq posts, If there are privacy issues involved, I certainly don't need to know what's going on, and that he want's Arbcom's public assurance that they agree with the action, and this isn't bullshit. [4]. Floq asks Arbcom to comment [5], and says he doesn't want to ask the WMF because they will tell me nothing, and instead he's asking Arbcom (whom he trusts) to find out what's going on, and give it a thumbs up or thumbs down [6].
• Two hours later, WMF made their first statement at BN [7]. Floq's response: looks like I was right [8].
• Fram made their first statement at Commons eight hours later, on June 11 at 07:27 [9]. It's half past midnight in San Francisco at the time.
• Four hours after Fram's post, Floq writes his "Statement of Intent" [10]: If WMF isn’t going to say more, I am going to assume everything Fram says is true ... I intend to unblock Fram as soon as I get to a regular computer. This is still less than 24hrs after the ban, and the first "go bonkers" proposal had been open for three hours.
• Other editors' responses to the Statement of Intent:
  • I strongly advise you against doing this. There are other, more efficient ways, to express your distrust with WMF actions. [11]
  • It's 5am in San Francisco. At least give them a chance to wake up before you decide they're aren't going to say more? [12]
  • It is not in our best interests to lose you as an admin. [13]
  • Please don't do that Floquenbeam, give the people who are apparently looking at this behind the scenes (Jimmy W, the board, ArbCom) some time. It's unrealistic to expect an instant response, and it's better to give them a chance than make a pointless knee-jerk sacrifice. If we reach a stalemate point where it's certain that no more will be done and you're not satisfied, by all means make a big gesture then - but falling on your sword right now won't help. [14]
  • I support this, but with the caveat of waiting 24hrs to allow issues with timezones. [15]
  • ... probably worth waiting before running out of the trenches into the machine gun nests. [16]
  • We've lost one too many administrators as it is – we don't need to lose another. [17]
  • But let's wait and see before we go and do something rash. [18]
  • ... throwing yourself under the bus is both brave and understandable, but this may not be the right bus. [19]
  • ... there's a whole range of provocative actions you could take as an admin short of unblocking. [20]
  • ... unblocking now would deprive the WMF of the opportunity to right this themselves, and push them into a defensive stance on the issue ... wait 24 hours to see if Jimbo or others in the Foundation come around to this first. [21]
  • ... rushing to action is counterproductive ... while as volunteers we can speak and act whenever we think it is right to do so, WMF employees can't always respond on the same basis ... they will need to have discussions among multiple people, review of any replies, etc., and that can take some time. This is especially true if there is any sensitive information involved that requires extra scrutiny of what they say and to whom ... we should expect some lag in their reaction. [22]
  • From an arbitrator: ... less than two hours from now, while a lot of us are doing our day jobs, is a short deadline ... maybe give it till tomorrow, at least? [23]
• Floq's responses to that:
  • At 12:23 UTC: OK, I'll wait until noon SF time. I don't actually think waiting is a good idea ... I'll try to listen to others and be patient. But not more patient than that. [24] (That's 19:00 UTC.) Assuming WMF opens their offices at 9am, this gives them three hours.
  • ... many people thought that sitting at lunch counters where you weren't welcome was needlessly disruptive and provocative, and that discussion and persuasion where what was really needed. [25]
  • No, I'm resolved to wait only until the time I grudgingly agreed to wait earlier. [26]
• 12:55 WP:FRAM created. [27]
• 18:22 Floq emails Fram [28]
• 18:58 WMF says second statement forthcoming shortly [29] (2 minutes before Floq's noon deadline)
• 19:27 WMF's second statement [30]
• 19:39 Floq unblocks Fram [31] Twelve minutes after the second statement. Here's WP:FRAM at the time: [32] "Time to go bonkers" proposal had 37 supports and 20 opposes; "we reject this overreach" had 37 supports and 10 opposes; "WMF was wrong to ban Fram" had 18 supports and 8 opposes; there was already like a half dozen proposals or more. The "unblock Fram in the meantime" proposal had been open for 4.5 hours. Floq says consensus is clear [33]. – Levivich 19:10, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

OK, but if we're going to do this, the authors of quotes 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 (same person as #9), 11, and 13 (some five-eyed invertebrate) are supporting.... (For completeness, #2 opposes, and 1, 5, and 12 have not weighed in.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:18, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

OR, why does it matter how those editors voted here? Does that change the timeline of events? – Levivich 23:01, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Levivich, not OR, but I advised caution, too, and I'm supporting this RfA because even though I advised caution at the time, and even though I can't in retrospect know whether the action was helpful or not, I trust that Floq had the best interests of the project in mind. Even if I thought it was hotheaded, I didn't then and I don't now mistrust his intent. To me, that's why it's important how those editors !voted here. --valereee (talk) 23:11, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

For me, though I respect your support and understand your reasons why, your support of this RfA doesn't change the fact that before Floq unblocked Fram, you (and others) gave him good advice and he ignored it. I'm not presenting a list of people who opposed Floq's action (after all, there are hundreds who are on record supporting it, but this isn't about popularity); rather, I'm showing that Floq was given a dozen good reasons to wait, but he didn't wait. He asked Arbcom's opinion, an Arbitrator asked him to give them more than two hours, and he said no. The fact that the same arb now supports this RfA doesn't mean anything to me; it doesn't change what happened back then; it was still not "carefully considered", it was "hasty", it was "reckless", to act on such a short timeline as he did, when he was given so many reasons to wait. – Levivich 04:44, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Meh. The timeline is based on omission; it cannot be wholly or entirely useful. And at this stage of proceedings: less so. ——SerialNumber54129 23:21, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

SN, please post diffs showing what I omitted. – Levivich 04:11, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

I have no interest in going through this timeline, which doesn't seem terribly relevant to me, but folks who are interested may like to take a look at Wikipedia:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram/Summary#List of significant events Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:51, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

The timeline is pointless, because it simply excerpts prior advice that Levivich regards as 'good', while ignoring the overwhelming consensus that emerged to go ahead with his proposal. It is a Potemkin village mock-up cherrypicking material to insinuate Floquenbean was recklessly going against advice. He wasn't: he made a proposal, waited for the community to vet it, found a roughly 26 for 7 against majority and acted on that consensus. You are, L, suggesting that the majority of editors there were giving 'unsound' advice. There is technically no 'good' or 'bad' in wikipedian terms: what determines everything is consensus.Nishidani (talk) 05:12, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Exactly: consensus, which requires the "unblock Fram" thread to be open for more than 4.5 hours, and waiting more than 12 minutes after the second WMF statement, in order to give time for editors to weigh in. Floq didn't ask for, or wait for, or listen to, input before making his decision: not from the community, not from Arbcom, not from the WMF. Maybe from Fram, based on the email. That the majority of the (!voting) community supports him after the fact doesn't change that. It doesn't turn his rash action into careful consideration. Anyway, I'm just posting these diffs to back up my oppose !vote. You are free to impute whatever motives and apply whatever fancy adjectives you'd like. – Levivich 06:06, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Where is it written in policy that a consensus among 34 commentators, 26 in favour 7 opposing, gained before the deadline Floquenbean set, must exceed 4.5 hours? Contrary to your assertion, he did wait, and listened, found a consensus on the thread specifically discussing his proposal, and went ahead. It's ridiculous suggesting that there was something amiss in his not listening to the WMF, which, like a bolt from the blue, created a systemic innovation without real precedent, dragged its legs when their ban caused massive disruption in the normal editing interests of numerous wikipedians, showed a tone-deaf incompetence in replying, when they deigned to, concerns expressed. Leadership in a sudden crisis, for that is what it is, can defer cautiously to cunctatorial advice or it may, with equal reason, adopt resolute action to throw into relief that there is indeed a crisis of some urgency. Time and context will tell, but the difference between the conservative wait-and-see-ers, and the step-in-and-act-with-signals-that-the crisis-maker-will-understand-people, is a matter of personality, not of good judgment vs poor judgment. While avoiding hyperbole, Chamberlain at Munich dithered and we know the rest: in the Suez crisis Eisenhower threatened to bankrupt the British economy overnight if they didn't quickly move to withdraw their invasion of Egypt. It worked. Kennedy faced down the Joint Chiefs of Staff calls for immediate action at the outset of the Cuban missile crisis, and took his time to negotiate, it worked. When the Choctaw were expelled from their lands in 1832, the Cherokee broke into two camps: the negotiators playing for time, and those who defied ultimatums. The minority Ridges negotiated, and the result was that they, together with the majority who refused to parlay, were driven out in 7 years. The non-negotiators had read the reality better than the Choctaw, Seminole, Creek, Chickasaw and the 'realist' Ridges in their midst.Nishidani (talk) 11:20, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

I am afraid that you are getting matters wildly out of context. You believe that there is a sensible comparison between historical actions where people lost their lives and this internecine shambles? Reality is that we have a pitiful dispute between an incomprehensible & incompetent organisation attempting to subordinate a reckless tribe of Admins. who think that 1990's attitudes still prevail and with the worst elected leadership, Arbom. in en-WP history unwilling - despite election pledges - to do anything about it. They probably deserve each other. Leaky caldron (talk) 12:14, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

The comparisons made were not between wars and wiki. They were illustrative of the Janus-faces of leadership, which can be cautious and consensual and fuck up or succeed, or boldly giving an example to a community, which can fuck up or succeed. The issue was leadership, which can be good or bad but doing makes it either.

In all this, those who oppose would, I believe generally concur with those who support in the view that the WMF showed poor communication skills, bad judgment and inept leadership in the lead up to, and precipitation of the crisis. They split along perhaps persona-ideological lines in how peons should react when management fucks up: (a) give them the benefit of the doubt while waiting for clarifications (read Franz Kafka) or (b) demand, even with demonstrative challenges to the rules of engagement/employment, that they be accountable, as the rest of us who actually construct this encyclopedia are obliged to be. Tutto qua.Nishidani (talk) 14:45, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

That support for the move came after the fact is contrafactual. I am not imputing motives. I will note that, when there is a clash between an established power structure and one vying for a voice, my impression admittedly based on just a little of your work, is that your instincts are to weigh in on the side of the former. That is per se quite legitimate of course. I may well be wrong, since I don't follow your editing (which nonetheless generally shows considerable acumen in technical matters).Nishidani (talk) 11:20, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

You're not imputing motives, but you think I generally side with the establishment? That's imputing motives, Nish. For the record, I don't support the WMF's actions towards Fram (which I've said before). What moved me from support to oppose in this RfA is Floq acting like the WMF, by being totally certain of the infallibility of his out-of-process action, while being totally dismissive of editors with legitimate concerns (those who complained to T&S). – Levivich 15:48, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

'To impute a motive,' dear friend, means to identify and attribute to someone else a personal reason behind, and influencing, their behavior. I do not hazard to know why anyone, other than myself, is either 'conservative' or 'radical' in regard to this or that choice. That, discerning accurately what 'bugs' us, is far too complex a question compared to looking, say, at a politician's voting record to work out on which side of the floor they stand. One doesn't need psychoanalysis to do that: you just tote up the figures. I may be wrong. As I said, it is my impression based on limited evidence. It is certainly not a matter of presumptuous psychobabblizing.Nishidani (talk) 16:40, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

You lost me at where is it written in policy that a thread should be open for more than 4.5hrs to achieve consensus. This is just the latest example of how you and I live on different planets. – Levivich 15:32, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

I asked that because you implied as much. It is normal psephological practice with exit polls that time only finesses, in the round, a tendency that emerges as soon as the voting booths have shut. The proportions established at the outset generally remain stable. It makes no difference whether you act from a 26/7 consensus or whether you act from a 260/70 consensus - the margin counts, not the numbers. As for living on different planets, we are both citizens of wikiworld, virtual though it be, wherever in the solar system our remarks are beamed from.Nishidani (talk) 16:50, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

"not from the WMF"? By the time Floquenbeam unblocked Fram, the WMF had twice made formal statements saying in effect that they were not going to tell anyone why they banned Fram, that the Wikipedia community had no right to such knowledge, and that there was nothing the Wikipedia community could do about it. The WMF's position was quite clear by then. (You do have a point that 4.5 hours is very little time to develop a consensus.)--Wikimedes (talk) 06:43, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm glad you found it useful. The WMF's position might have been clear at the time Floq unblocked Fram, but it certainly wasn't at the time he announced his intention to unblock. Floq characterized the decision to unblock as "carefully considered" (Q13), but at the point in time when he announced this decision, he hadn't even asked the WMF to make a statement at all, and was basing his decision to unblock on "assuming" everything Fram wrote is true because the WMF didn't "say more" (nevermind that it was 5am San Fran time and Fram's statement was issued at midnight). In my book, not that's not carefully considered. – Levivich 15:44, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for providing the timeline, by the way. It helps put things into perspective, even if we disagree on how to interpret it.--Wikimedes (talk) 06:45, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

You seem to be trying to use those quotes to build the case that Floq was rash and ignored the concerns of other editors. But that doesn't seem to reflect many of those editors' actual experience. In fact, reading the full original posts will show that several of the editors you quoted were concerned about Floq's proposed action at least in part because they thought he was a good admin and didn't want to see him get desysopped. So you're citing their words to support the exact opposite of the position they were advocating. Since I'm one of the people quoted, I don't love that you're citing my imperfect-but-well-intended efforts to navigate a messy situation as reflecting negatively on the also-imperfect-but-well-intended efforts of someone I respect. I'd be sad if you got desysopped and I could have maybe done something about the situation but I had to go to a meeting is maybe a more relevant snippet from the linked diff. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:22, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

I wrote in my oppose: Floq gave the WMF only three hours (9am–12pm) to respond, even in the face of over a dozen editors asking him to wait. You were one of those dozen editors who asked him to wait. You did, in fact, ask him to wait (until tomorrow at least). He did, in fact, say no. That's my point–my only point here–and that's what the diffs "prove". When someone writes, "don't do this because we can't lose another sysop", the position they are advancing is "don't do this", not "you're a good sysop". I didn't say, or imply, that you or others didn't support Floq, or don't support him now, or anything else–just that you asked him to wait and he didn't wait. That the editors who asked him to wait don't feel he was rash, or don't feel they were ignored, doesn't change how I feel about it. I respect your experience and I'm not speaking for you. I'm sharing my experience of what happened: he was rash and ignored calls to wait. – Levivich 15:30, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

You wrote in your oppose Floq gave the WMF only three hours (9am–12pm) to respond, even in the face of over a dozen editors asking him to wait. (my bolding). 3 hours .. 26 hours .. announced to ArbCom some time before the actual block of Fram was carried out ... they did collect the necessary approvals likely before that .. they did their research before that. It is all way more time than what was given to Fram. Fram still did not have a chance to respond to accusations. With that, I think that Floquenbeam did a great job in giving time to respond. They had from 10:30 (when the shit started to hit the fan) until end of that working day to realize that they needed to say something (which they could have expected long in advance). WMF had this long time in the making, they did not have a response ready. They deliberately came with empty statements (2 empty statements). They had more than enough time. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:58, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

For a starter, Dank said I'll support whatever decisions you choose to make; I just want to point out that there's a whole range of provocative actions you could take as an admin short of unblocking. You have carefully omitted the first part but copied the second. There are other similar cases and I take a sheer dislike at your cherry-picking attempts. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 10:02, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Dank had some great advice, let's paste more of it [34] [35]:

... throwing yourself under the bus is both brave and understandable, but this may not be the right bus. What happens if Fram diffuses tensions by agreeing not to edit WP until the present crisis is resolved, in exchange for an unblock? What happens if Jimbo, or the board, or someone else steps in and puts things on hold? If there are just a few casualties (such as you) and then there's a sudden lull, then maybe everything will turn out fine ... or, maybe, to make a point, the WMF will insist that the casualties stay dead. Food for thought ... I'll support whatever decisions you choose to make; I just want to point out that there's a whole range of provocative actions you could take as an admin short of unblocking. (I can think of a couple but I want to stay above the fray, for now.) Your call.

Now, I say that this comment amounts to Dank suggesting that Floq should not unblock Fram (at least not at that time), and giving him a number of good reasons why. (Courtesy ping Dank.) Anyway, WBG, you said "for a starter"; what's next? – Levivich 15:38, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the mention. Above my pay grade, of course, but my position is and was that slow-motion fighting works better on en-wp than abrupt fighting. Abruptness tends to scare people and make it harder for them to back down. OTOH, not fighting at all can be bad, too. Just my opinion, and I didn't really expect anything to come from sharing it, apart from being a good wiki-citizen. - Dank (push to talk) 16:00, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Don't have the inclination to engage with somebody who manages to so-confidently say that their own interpretation of what a third-party-editor said to another third-party-editor, in these issues, supersedes the clarifications of the involved parties. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 16:20, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

It is a sizable quotation, and one of the better comments made at that time (by my interpretation, obvi). The situation is very broad yet intensely personalised, that changes from moment to moment, I'm appreciative of the time the user took to assemble any sort of version of events. Slowing down and giving considered responses has to be good advice without a burning urgency to act, just another redundant comment I'm afraid, but I wanted to give some endorsement of less adversarial approach. cygnis insignis 16:52, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

FOARP's oppose

1. 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)

   You are comparing a candidate who failed RFA for only having two thousand edits with a candidate who has contributed over twenty nine thousand edits, and then saying they are being judged by a different standard? May I suggest you look again, I think you will find it very hard to find a first time candidate at RFA with even half as many edits as Floq who failed for the same reasons as Daffy123. Not all candidates with Floq's level of contributions pass RFA, but the reasons why they fail are not the reasons cited by the opposers in the RFA for Daffy123. ϢereSpielChequers 10:42, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

   Daffy123's opposers cite a lack of edits, with one saying he should make another 10,000. Floquenbeam has had 4,756 mainspace edits in 11 years, with very few of those in recent years indicating he has basically "checked out" of the day-job of editing the encyclopedia. Daffy123's opposers cited bad behaviour (but had a clean block-log). Floquenbeam doesn't have a clean blocklog, with his log including a block for breaking 3RR (removed with the classic unblockable comment "please don't do it again"), and admits to swearing at other editors, but shows no contrition. Daffy123's opposers cited a lack of participation at AFD. Floq has voted on exactly 11 AFDs (the AFD closure tool is crashing on me so I don't know how many closures he's made - but I wouldn't trust anyone to make closures who has voted so little). Is Floq being treated as a first-time editor would be treated? No. FOARP (talk) 11:08, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

   Aside from having a total of edits that puts Floq into a very different category than Daffy, Floq has over 6000 logged admin actions including 1904 deletions. If people are concerned that Floq would make the wrong calls on deletions they can check that record. Including where Floq has actually been active - most RFA voters don't look for a candidate who has been through admin coaching and is prepared to use all the admin tools, they look to see how qualified they are in the areas they intend to get involved in. Negligable AFD involvement is not a problem for a candidate whose need for the tools comes from AIV or new page patrol. As for 4,756 mainspace edits, We have had new admins in recent years who have passed RFA on less than 4,000 total edits. The de facto minimum was not even twice Daffy's record, yes you would get the odd outlier who opposes for les than 10,000 edits - most successfl RFAs are 90-95% not 100%. RFA has !voters who don't follow the concensus and will oppose for various unusual reasons, but a first time RFA candidate with the equivalent of Floq's record would get a very different response at RFA than a candidate with fewer than 2,300 edits did. ϢereSpielChequers 05:56, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

   Interestingly you're not mentioning the admitted bad behaviour, without any evidence of contrition - quite the contrary - which would just be death in any other RFA. And if most successful RFAs are 90-95%, then what are we to think about one that may well be ~75%? In every other first-time RFA (or even just run-of-the-mill permission request) the slightest thing is jumped on as an excuse not to grant the request. But not here. Here a big part of the admin corps protects one of their own. FOARP (talk) 21:19, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

   There are lots of opposes from people who agree with you that Floq's reversal of a WMF action was bad. Plus more who consider that action good, or regard it as an isolated incident and are supporting or opposing for other reasons. If you were simply taking sides on that issue I would not have commented on your specific !vote. I did comment on your comparing an editor with 29,000 edits and 6,000 admin actions with a "candidate who failed RFA for only having two thousand edits". Personally i would be comfortable if we went back to the era where two thousand edits was sufficient to be taken seriously at RFA. But I know that the lowest edit count of a successful candidate in recent years was about 3,500. Having been in either the oppose section or the support section in many, many RFAs, I know that provided one meets the de facto requirements for tenure, edit count, need for the tools and referenced contributions, the community is actually quite tolerant of mistakes by an admin candidate. Unless the candidate has done something unusually heinous then an effective oppose has to demonstrate not just an isolated recent mistake, but a pattern that is ongoing. For example on CSD errors I only oppose if I see multiple recent errors that leave me distrusting the candidate's judgment on deletion, and i am less tolerant than most RFA !voters re deletion errors. But that's a digression. You are comparing the candidate with someone who has less than a tenth of their edit count. I'm merely pointing out that the community will auto fail a candidate with less than three thousand edits, and that such a candidate is not comparable to this one. ϢereSpielChequers 14:02, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

   @WereSpielChequers: Your multiple, long-winded expositions aimed at the same editor are beginning to look like badgering. Can this be taken to the Talk Page please? Leaky caldron (talk) 14:52, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

   Actually, they look to me like someone trying very hard to explain something to someone who just doesn't want to hear it.' Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:35, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

   A big part of the response from the supporters of Floq on this RFA seems to be based on the assumption that there can be no legitimate opposition to giving him admin rights at this point. This is something Floq himself encouraged with his "joke" about hassling the oppose voters (which, joke or not, is what happened). I honestly think this response is more of the same. This is particularly because User:WereSpielChequers references something that I did not actually say here: "There are lots of opposes from people who agree with you that Floq's reversal of a WMF action was bad". Actually I'm not sure I have a view on this, but WSC assumes this is what I am voting on rather than the reason I gave: Floq would not pass a legitimate first-time RFA based on his present stats and on the attitudes communicated in his self-nom. It is unfair to legitimate first-time RFA candidates to give him a pass on this but monster them for similar failings. FOARP (talk) 08:12, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

   Cheers for presenting another perspective, I sympathise with many of the sentiments expressed and other supporting views are already well aired in the prelude to this RfA. cygnis insignis 10:46, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

   As I said, I've not criticised others for opposing Floq re Fram, and if you had opposed re the attitude in his self nom I wouldn't have commented on that either - Floq fails my nomination criteria over that issue, though not my support criteria. My criticism of your oppose was in your comparing an editor with 29,000 edits and 6,000 logged admin actions to an editor with barely two thousand edits. I can think of an editor with even more edits who failed RFA due to a perceived lack of need for the tools. But a comparable editor with six thousand deletion tags and AIV reports instead of performing those thousands of deletions and blocks would not fail RFA over lack of need for the tools. We have had longstanding but no longer active editors who have failed RFA due to their "present stats"; but that doesn't apply to Floq who has over 1500 edits in 2019, and over 2,500 edits (more than the total for the editor you compared them to) since September last year. New candidates can also fail RFA if they haven't contributed any content, but Floq passed RFA in 2010, long ago, but after the de facto standards were raised to include some article work, and unlike other activity, article writing does not need to be recent for a candidate to pass RFA. Floq's 2010 RFA opposes included several because Floq's edit count then was only 3,500 and there was then a "paucity of article contributions" - note paucity, not the total lack of such that would even then have seen an RFA fail. Over 25,000 edits and 6,000 admin actions later Floq is the equivalent of a much more experienced candidate than the one you compared them to. ϢereSpielChequers 17:16, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

"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." - the entire basis of my oppose !vote was that Floq was not being judged by the same standards as other RFAs, and that included his attitude. FOARP (talk) 19:15, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Ihardlythinkso's oppose

1. 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)

   To all you admins who lay out the "fuck you"s (including the nom, who seems to even boast that he never retracted a "fuck you" against one user), I say: Even I have no interest to ever be an admin, I know, that if I were, it would be a simple matter to turn off any obscenities (or hidden vulgar insults). (It's a matter of professionalism. You just wouldn't do it. For comparison, think of street police. Have you even ever heard of a policeman or policewoman say "Fuck you" to a citizen, under any circumstance? Hardly ever, and perhaps never. They just turn it off. As a matter of professionalism. They don't go there. But you admins who can't control your mouths ... you don't stack up. You take on a voluntary role of admin, with a higher level of behavior expectation, then proceed to blow it. Sure the cop is getting a salary and you aren't, but that doesn't zero out the idea of professionalism & self-respect & the culture of the rank. Any WP admin who can't understand this has no business being admin. And that includes you, Mr. Floq!) --IHTS (talk) 04:12, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

   Says the editor who has been blocked 17 times in 7 years, including 4 indef blocks. Softlavender (talk) 05:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

   Always tacky when someone attempts to discredit by referencing another's block log. For obvious reasons. And if you think something I wrote was disingenuous, you're very wrong. But I don't need your approval or agreement, you're not someone I respect. (Leave me alone, Lavender. You've been an ongoing harasser. And I think you suck.) --IHTS (talk) 07:10, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

   Have you even ever heard of a policeman or policewoman say "Fuck you" to a citizen, under any circumstance? Yes, actually, I have. When you aren't sat at home watching them on Cops, police are a lot more like regular people than you might think. They swear too. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:02, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

   When they were on the job, in public, for others to hear? I doubt it. (Extremely unusual.) Never watched even one episode of Cops. (Or any cop show for that matter. Don't watch TV.) --IHTS (talk) 07:10, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

   Yes, absolutely. I've heard cops say a lot worse in fact. But I can understand how someone who has few or no encounters with police or other public servants might think otherwise. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:45, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

   Was talking about street cops on duty, not other "public servants". And I know several cops, and had my share of "encounters" as everyone, don't know why you assume different. And as far as my premise, a cop saying "fuck you" to a citizen while on duty, in public and loud enough to hear, I still doubt it very much, and in fact I don't believe you (sorry). (Even the cops in NYC after having water dumped on them, didn't break professionalism, & they probably weren't even aware they were being filmed.) --IHTS (talk) 08:58, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

   So it's incorrect for others to assume that you haven't had interactions with police, yet you conclude that Mendaliv is lying about his own experiences? Strange. This has an 'I'm right and everyone else is wrong' vibe. Lepricavark (talk) 18:48, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

   Never said anyone was "lying", don't put words in my mouth. What I just don't believe is that if what he witnessed were explored, it would end up not fitting what I've described. p.s. You have a history of harassing me with unsolicited comments on public boards. So you know what you can do. --IHTS (talk) 19:14, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

   Contrary to what you may think, you do not get to determine who responds to you on this 'public board', where most replies are not explicitly solicited anyway. As for the rest of your response, which you have elaborated upon below, you are stretching the bounds of credulity. It's pointless to try to reason with you as you have already decided that you must be right. Lepricavark (talk) 19:38, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

   Lepricavark, not buying that your bad-faith post wasn't targetted to annoy/harass. The last time you did this was your pile-on at ANI, I believe your accusation there was untrue, but it wasn't the space or time to get into it. If you wanna do that, if it turns out I'm wrong, I'll apologize for saying your posts are designed to harass. On the otherhand if you're wrong, I'd expect apology too, or promise to please avoid me (like I've avoided you). This w/ require a neutral place other than here, & possibly a neutral third party if it seems necessary. (I don't have expectation you're open to it, getting to the bottom of things is almost never done on the WP. Or you may fear the result, dunno.) Short of entering that discussion, you're in no position to lecture. --IHTS (talk) 00:04, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

   I'm not interested in your attempt to play psychiatrist. Lepricavark (talk) 00:13, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

   An asinine deliberately false & twisted interpretation. So I've had it with you. Like, forever. Quit hounding me on public boards, it's targetted harassment and you know it. I leave you alone. Pest. --IHTS (talk) 02:03, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

   Don't say absurd things on public boards and we aren't likely to cross paths. Not that I'm going to accept any ultimatums. Good day, Lepricavark (talk) 11:24, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

   (edit conflict) Re Have you even ever heard of a policeman or policewoman say "Fuck you" to a citizen, under any circumstance?, regularly. I take it you've never actually met one and are just judging by the edited highlights you see on television—the police are regular citizens performing a job, not some kind of emotionless robot. (If you're shocked by the idea that a public servant could swear, heaven help you if you ever see the military in action. Hint: the dialogue in movies is not realistic.) ‑ Iridescent 06:14, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

   Haven't watched TV since Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman was cancelled. And, I know lots of cops. I know they're human, stop w/ the obvious. I'm talking cops on duty in public, and not the military, which is different. --IHTS (talk) 07:10, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

   So, because you don't believe it and you haven't seen it, it does not happen, it has never happened and will also never happen? I have never seen an admin swear at me, and I don't believe they ever do (and no, I do not follow diffs). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:05, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

   Huh?! My choosing to not believe his example, if explored/investigated further, would fit what I'm describing, doesn't lead to any of your wild conclusions. (For example, if theoretically I asked him to send me via Email the name of the officer, and the officer's city, and then I called and spoke to the officer, and asked if he indeed said "Fuck you!" to a citizen while on duty, my belief is that I w/ learn there was another factor, for example the citizen was not a stranger but someone he knew personally, or the officer said it in jest, or said it under his breath, etc. Or it is also possible the officer might tell me yeah, he said that loud to a stranger citizen while on duty. But even if that turned out the case, my premise is that it w/ be extremely rare.) --IHTS (talk) 19:25, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

   IHTS, I agree. I was vague in my point. Cops are human, but except for the cases of those who woke up that morning with a bad mood, I indeed do not think that they would, out of the blue, say 'fuck you' to a random citicen. But I typed out a follow up yesterday which I deleted before saving (now somewhat expanded): 'Actually, in my 14+ years on Wikipedia I do not recall ANY admin ever say 'fuck you' to me' ... so, now comparing cops and admins (which seems to me a false comparison, but ok), are they so different? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:56, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

   @Ihardlythinkso: Have you even ever heard of a policeman or policewoman say "**** you" to a citizen, under any circumstance? Not the best example. I would've gone with a school teacher or maybe a judge. Most people's views of American law enforcement is not dissimilar to your views on admins. Cheers! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:47, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

   Of course I think cops can be corrupt, "bad cops" etc., unethical, unfair, physically unnecessarily abusive, & incompetent. Still even then methinks rare (or never) they'd say "Fuck you!" to a stranger citizen loud while on duty. (And that was my only point.) --IHTS (talk) 19:34, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

   I kid you not, this just happened today to a family member of mine during a traffic stop. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:06, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

WBG reverting "obvious sock"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

@Winged Blades of Godric and Winged Blades of Godric (AWB): you reverted this oppose !vote with the edit summary "obvious sock" [36], but you didn't revert this support !vote from an editor with a similar "contrib profile" [37] (or any others). Can you please tell me what's the difference between these two, and why you're removing !votes instead of leaving it to the crats? – Levivich 18:31, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

• It has been reverted by SoWhy. WBG is impetuous. Very. :) Leaky caldron (talk) 18:36, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
• I found this close, just now and left a reply over the OP's t/p. To copy that:- You are rational enough to know that whataboutery is a logical fallacy. I did not spot the support !vote and it ought be reverted - more of an obvious sock, IMO. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 18:49, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Out of time question

Deadline for closing the RFA has already passed so it is too late for me to ask this question, but had I thought of it a day earlier my question to Floq would have been:

"If you couldn't be an admin, would you still contribute to this encyclopedia?"

If Floq feels like answering here that'd be grand, though of course there's no reason why he should. FOARP (talk) 18:51, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

@FOARP: Tbh, you've still got half an hour left, I think? Might as well take it to the wire  :) Well, more so than it is already! ——SerialNumber54129 18:59, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Done, though I doubt we'll get a response so close to the deadline - understandable if Floq declines to answer such a late question. FOARP (talk) 19:04, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Adding to my comment

I seem to have run out of time. I'd like to add to my comment by saying that I admire Floquenbeam for his ability to parse through complicated situations in a competent and elucidating manner. El_C 19:31, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Link to BC

@Primefac: I think you have an escaped bracket; any chance of getting him back?! ——SerialNumber54129 19:35, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Likely, if I didn't spend all my time answering edit requests and fan mail. I think I edit-conflicted with half the admin corps closing (and then fixing) the page. Primefac (talk) 19:39, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Who'd be popular, eh?!  ;) Many thanks for that though! ——SerialNumber54129 15:06, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

New userbox for people who !voted in this RfA

Seeing that this RfA broke the record for most !votes, I created a userbox for people who !voted. - ZLEA _T\^C 22:29, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Very nice, although breaking records is far less important than each one of us being able to earnestly express our considered opions without feeling belittled by those with differing perspectives. That so many were able to do so is, itself, very impressive. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:39, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm kind of opposed the the crown motif. Sends the wrong message. Mop, yes. Crown, no. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:25, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I finally accomplished something on Wikipedia! Cosmic Sans (talk) 13:16, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Rong Qiqi (talk · contribs) was recently CheckUser-blocked. Earlier, TheSmartOne2019's comment was struck after that account was CheckUser-blocked. Should Rong Qiqi's comment be struck as well? — Newslinger talk 14:37, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

@Bbb23: as blocking CU - any reason to think this is otherwise valid? — xaosflux ^Talk 14:46, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done —CYBERPOWER (Chat) 14:48, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: (edit conflict) I'm not sure what you mean by "otherwise valid". I would also prefer not to make the decision as I voted at the RfA. If you look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A conceptual entity, I would think that you or another 'crat could decide what is appropriate without additional input.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:55, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

@Bbb23: thanks for the note, this has been striken, and has been discounted (was reading that SPI in the meantime) - otherwise valid may possibly been for some odd edge cases where the only SP activity solely occurred subsequent to the voting - but as both the sock and the master were present prior to the !voting this isn't the case here. Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 15:00, 30 July 2019 (UTC)