It's worth noting that none of the 'crats who are seeing a consensus, has remotely explained their reasoning or weighting in as much detail or clarity as the one single dissenter.....
Floquenbeam went into this looking for a policy based endorsement of his breaking shit on behalf of the mob. This scumbag will never admit it, but he hasn't got it. Not even fucking close. He has been endorsed by a mob, but that of course is a different matter, and ironically the whole point of trusting Administrators is to ensure mob rule cannot override the inherent consensus to be found in policy.Save for less than a handful of really weak or outright troll comments, the opposition are united in their reasons for opposing Floquenbeam; to summarize my thoughts about the opposition, I agree with what Dweller and Useight stated. By contrast, a non-trivial number of the support comments appeared to be more anti-WMF rather than offering an argument to restore adminship to Floquenbeam; I found it difficult to give such supports the same weight as well-thought out, policy-backed opposition. There were several of those supporting who expressed strong misgivings about Floquenbeam's conduct; Ymblanter's support, for example, backed up several of the opposition's points and was constructed in such a way that at first I thought it was an oppose placed in the wrong section before I read the last sentence. Other supporters, such as AGK, also agree with many of those in opposition, even if he himself chose to express a seemingly hesitant support. Overall, I felt there was an enthusiasm gap between the camps, in that the opposition were much more confident in their decision than the supporters were in theirs.
This combination in the support section mixed with the well-argued opposition leads me to interpret Floquenbeam's candidacy as no consensus. Acalamari 01:58, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
MBisanz exemplifies the failure of leadership here......
The idea Floquenbeam needs to be celebrated and rewarded for violating every policy that matters, for no other higher purpose than wikipolitics, in the process furthering the harassment of multiple people, doesn't come from a reasonable mind. How could it?Reasonable minds can differ, and there are certainly many reasonable minds on all three sides of this discussion. That said, a difference of opinion is not the same thing as a lack of consensus.
It has been shown through this RfA that you have to be a born liar to argue Floquenbeam acted with due diligence and an analytical mind. He was hasty, he was emotional, he was reckless, and the mob love him for it. Those who admitted as much in their support, have to have been given full weight, otherwise no fucking way in hell does this reconfirmation even reach 66%, the usual standard for consensus on Wikipedia.
Let nobody forget also, as he admitted, he had no plan, the immediate outcome of his violation changed nothing since Fram was still de facto blocked, and his claim that his action precipitated longer term benefits for Wikipedia (since as he said he could care less about Fram) is dubious, since he himself admits the outcome is not as he would have desired.
