Misplaced Pages

talk:Requests for adminship/Floquenbeam 2 - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 28bytes (talk | contribs) at 21:08, 26 July 2019 (→Black Kite's support: cmt). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 21:08, 26 July 2019 by 28bytes (talk | contribs) (→Black Kite's support: cmt)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
This is an RfA talk page. While voting and most discussion should occur on the main RfA page, sometimes discussions stray off-topic or otherwise clutter that page. The RfA talk page serves to unclutter the main RfA page by hosting discussions that are not related to the candidacy.
  • Please remain calm and civil in discussions on both pages, avoiding personal attacks and harassment. Uninvolved administrators can still fully intervene in RfAs.
  • Discussions should stay on-topic; consider moving or continuing discussions that are going off-topic elsewhere.
  • Move discussions not germane to the candidacy here, then link them with {{subst:rfan|dm|name of section header}}, indented to the original vote. Be conservative in using the template; obvious trolls and disruptive participants need not be noticed.
  • Otherwise, avoid starting discussions here if they would be of interest to RfA participants and can fit on the main RfA page; generally, discussions should begin at the "General comments" section or as an indented reply to a vote.

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)

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)

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 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

  1. Support per User:SD0001, User:Jusdafax, User:Bilorv and others. ] 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 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 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)

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 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)
  • 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)

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 Misplaced Pages: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 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

ZXCVBNM's oppose

  1. Oppose While the candidate's career has obviously benefited Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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 underway'? --Dirk Beetstra 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 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. 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 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)