Floquenbeam

[CrowsNest]

Over 40 opposers now, and 12 neutrals, and he's starting to crack.

This isn't the coronation he wanted, clearly. Sure, most are content to suck his dick, but some can see he doesn't wash nearly enough to be considered cleanest of the clean.

They angered me, I didn't anger them. They lost my trust; I didn't lose theirs.

Not really a surprise that in the space of a day, the Administrator who admits he can be impulsive, has switched from claiming his action was not an emotional decision, to a fairly clear admission now that it was. Which answer to believe? Maybe the psycho doesn't know himself. Long time ago now, so unless he keeps a mood journal, which I'm presuming his high school counselor way back when probably said was a good idea, we may never know.

when balancing competing interests, [civility] is not the most important [policy]

Not really a surprise that the person who overturned an attempt by the Foundation to shore up en.wiki's minimal expected standards of behaviour, thinks civility is a secondary policy.

What I would say to them: we already have a mechanism for dealing with complaints about harassment, including (if necessary) submitting private information. I would not be terribly surprised if Fram has done stuff that cumulatively is too much to tolerate. The place to make that decision is ArbCom. The way not to do it is a non-transparent decision by a bunch of groupthinking coworkers in an office somewhere with no possibility of appeal, or even contest and answer the accusations in the first place. What I'm curious about how many of those "complaints" are an organized attempt to get Fram kicked out? Seems surprising that hardly anyone actually knows about the new option of complaining to WMF about people harassing them, and yet multiple people chose it to complain about this one particular editor? But there's no way to tell if the process is not transparent. --Floquenbeam (talk) 11:58, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Not really a surprise that now one of the excuses offered up for his action is he thought Fram was the victim of a conspiracy. As above, it is also pretty clear the entire point of the ban was that the normal systems were failing. He may disagree that they were, but this was the stated reason.

I think I explained this pretty thoroughly above

I cannot help what you, or anyone, choose to perceive as my motivations if you don't believe that

No surprise the Administrator who is blind to his own emotional instability and general temperament issues (the real psychos always say something like 'I am just grumpy'), who acted impulsively out of an arrogant belief he was correct, is now getting snippy with the community who now question his judgement

We're finally getting to something like the truth though. He reversed an office action because he thought the legal owners of Wikipedia had conspired to eject Fram. That they were corrupt, basically. The irony of an accusation like that coming from a long time Wikipedia Administrator, is hilarious. How many people have they conspired to ban after get togethers on IRC, and the first thing the victim hears of it, is the log entry?

It is now beyond obvious that Floquenbeam not only disagreed with what the Foundation did, HE HAD NO REAL FUCKING CLUE WHY THEY DID IT, despite repeated explanations in statements and policy. He did what he did because he was angry and he is impulsive, and above all, he thinks he is better than everyone else. He fancies himself as some kind of revolutionary leader, not a mere janitor that pushes the buttons the community asks him to.

Which of his conflicting descriptions of Trust and Safety is the one we're meant to believe? The far away conspirators who are totally incompetent, or the department that actually includes a lot of volunteers who he trusts implicitly.

Which version of ArbCom are we meant to believe he supports? The one with jurisdictional authority over Fram, or the one that has already stated that the mob's ravings and rantings about what the Foundation has supposedly done, the mob Floquenbeam appointed himself Chief Lightning Rod to, was apparently horseshit. Multiple legitimate complaints, investigated thoroughly, by people with deep understanding of the nuances of the toxic en.wiki culture.

For the epic had faith alone, he is patently unfit to be an Administrator. The toxic English Wikipedia community is so broken, they're desperate for him to be one.

It is high time RfA is reformed. It is totally unacceptable that people can get away with saying 'why not' and other similarly vacuous variants, when serious (arguably the most serious) objections have been raised.

There needs to be a positive declaration from the Wikipedia community that they understand what he did and why he did it (if he can ever get it straight it in his own head), that they understand what everyone else's reasons for thinking he is unfit are, and deciding to promote him anyway. That is what would happen in a supposed self-governing community that was mature enough to take responsibility for its actions.

It should be mandatory for every single supporter to categorically say they are fine with having an Administrator who overturned an office action because the WMF had made them angry with their far away groupthink and their corrupt conspiracy to ban a Wikipedia Administrator who was entitled to due process and a fair trial (unless the Foundation wished to imply he had touched kids, then Floquenbeam would be fine with trusting their confidential investigation).

[CrowsNest]

What happened to RfA is a discussion? Bullshit like this would fall apart at the slightest scrutiny.....

as far as I can tell, every action he took was in the interests of promoting accountability, and was not about protecting harassers, actual or alleged. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

1. Fram was banned, very likely for WP:HARASSing multiple users, misconduct which had continuing despite an official conduct warning.

2. The implementation of the ban made it clear this misconduct was localized to en.wiki, had no off-wiki component, and had happened because en.wiki's internal governance was failing to stop it. So the ban was commensurate to the threat, and left the door open to a reformed Fram, exactly as the community handles its own bans.

3. Floquenbeam disregarded all this context, and after hastily concluding Fram was victim of a conspiracy, decided to unilaterally undo the ban, and had the audacity to welcome him back to editting, adding only as an apparent afterthought, and entirely for Fram's benefit, that he might want to consider "dialing back the aggression a couple of notches when dealing with other good faith editors". Not a warning, not even an advisory, just phrased as if this would be a favour for Floquenbeam and en.wiki. No mention that aggression is not permitted by WP:ADMIN, full stop, and certainly no acknowledgement that aggression had been mentioned in the statements explaining why Fram had been banned. No acknowledgement that nothing in WP:ADMIN allows supposed bad faith editors to be treated with extra aggression, despite the fact this exact sort of warped community acceptance of the separation of targets into red shirts and green shirts, obviously played a part in the mob getting so angry at being reminded what the policy actually is. Nobody gets harassed, nobody gets beaten, nobody gets abused or insulted. Nobody. Not even the pedophiles. Not for their benefit alone, but because of the clear benefits to Wikipedia. If you don't agree with this, then why did you sign up to Wikipedia? You know what the rules are, they are written down for you, because you're the exact sort of scum who need to be told how to behave properly.

On what planet does this not add up to Floquenneam issuing a giant ATTABOY, GOT YOUR BACK, JACK, to "harassers, actual or alleged"?

I shouldn't be surprised, but writing about these people so soon after eating, really does bring up a bit of bile.

Vile people.

Fuck them all, even those opposing Fram, for basically being willing collaborators in a broken system.

[CrowsNest]

It's going to take an ego the size of an iceberg to look at this RfA and conclude that you really do deserve to be an Administrator. That nothing the opposition has said carries any weight at all. After all, it's not like he can take it under advisement, is it? Nothing he can change as a result of this damning feedback. Supporters are barely conceding he did anything wrong, while most are eagerly sticking their tongue right up his ring-peice, and giving him hand relief at the same time.

You're obviously going to want to delude yourself that those are the people who are being honest and straight with you, that they don't have any ulterior motives or serious mental impairments. No way could you even get out of bed in the morning if you thought for a second that even a tiny little bit of the extremely detailed and well argued opposition is correct, because it's not trivial, it is fundamental, and it is entirely incompatible with supporters views, no middle ground to be had.

Can't exactly dial down your core character traits to suit both sides. Not least when you've been so open about how you're just an intransigent grumpy old fuck. It's a take me as I am, warts and all deal, I guess. Turns out, a fair few people hate warts, and they think, quite correctly, that if warts are to be tolerated at all, it should not be on those meant to be representing the highest standards, with access to the important buttons.

No, in the face of that criticism, naturally as a weak person, for what he did was the ultimate sign of weakness of character, nothing but a digital middle finger really, you go with the people who can barely be bothered to write more than a sentence in testament to your character and record. People for whom even in this context, jokes and slapstick are enough.

Floquenbeam has five days to show his true character. I'd say it's a fair bet he starts to crack, and either self-immolates, or withdraws into his dark knight of the soul, increasingly reluctant to respond to concerns. He will leave it to his sycophants and annointed knob polishers to defend his record, even though a truthful response to this RfA, as he correctly pointed out, rests only on what he can say was in his mind at the time, and how he has personally reflected on it. We don't need to know the mob loves him, we can see that from his spotless private parts.

Can you handle it, Floquenbeam? Have you got what it takes? Do you dare show people you do genuinely have courage, that you do genuinely know the difference between shallow popularity and true conviction?

I say you don't.

This is why he said he doesn't like RfA. Not very nice, having to account for your flaws. Especially if an inability to do so, at least with sincere honesty, is one of your flaws.

I say you want no part of answering posts like this........

I'm absolutely disgusted by the answer to question 16. What I'm curious about how many of those "complaints" are an organized attempt to get Fram kicked out? is a bullshit conspiracy theory I'd expect to read on the more bitter areas of Wikipediocracy but not by a long-term admin in their reconfirmatory RfA. Floquenbeam continues to know nothing of the situation but wants to keep using their power to broadcast the same kind of thinking that has lead to serious and deeply troubling recent harassment of a few people suspected of being The Fram Saboteur. The rest of their answer, in which they condemn the behaviour of reporting any sort harassment to ToS, is no better. Reporting to ToS has always been an option—a necessary one when Arbcom fail or would not be appropriate to consult (e.g. reporting somebody on Arbcom)—and the only reason it's now controversial is the response of the WMF in giving a temporary ban on one wiki, which is in no way the fault of anyone making a report. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 18:27, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

RexxS couldn't handle it. Got a real shock. Had to be persuaded, begged, threatened, to stay the course, just so that scum like Drmies could hail him as a brother in arms. And he truly is. The same arrogant belief in his own determinations of right and wrong, and the same total illegitimacy because of it. The very people who make you forget that being an Administrator is most of all supposed to be about listening and defusing, not talking and provoking.

You know what you are, Floquenbeam, deep down, I'm sure of it. Really deep down. You can be an Administrator, but you'll never really be one. Just like Eric Corbett is not, never was and clearly never could be, a Wikipedia editor. But he is. The real courage comes the acceptance that even what the majority of these freaks are happy to accept is normal, is always going to be abnormal enough for a sizable chunk of the community to call it what it is.

You can't fool all of the people all of the time. And just like Eric, eventually it will eat you up, knowing what you really are. You're future is already tracking his recent history, the creeping disillusionment and the sad attempts to remain the centre of attention. The addiction eventually wanes, once the patient has become just skin and bones, a walking shadow. And the wiki moves on, rather cruelly forgetting you were even there, much less that you were once a big fish.

[CrowsNest]

The supporters clearly have no clue who Floquenbeam really is. Was his middle finger to the Foundation out of character, or his true character? Was it a wrong thing done for the right reasons, or the right thing done for the wrong reasons? Was it a single act of misconduct that can be forgiven, or a single act that should be applauded.

It's all rather begging the question too, if this single incident is not enough, then what would be? Hard to think of anything an Administrator can do as a single act, that is worse.

The Wikipedia community, specifically dipshit Administrators like Ritchie, who is no stranger to extraordinary acts of incompetence, usually measure the level of badness of an act, by the level of pointless drama distracting people away from encyclopedia building that it produced. So how much of the terabytes of discussion of FRAMBAN is directly the result of Floquenbeam's ego?

More importantly, when has a single Administrator doing a single thing generated this much wasted time? And worse, with no concrete benefit. All the claimed benefits, are rather subjective and many are not yet even proven, since it is inarguable the immediate objective, allowing Fram to edit until the local cops got around to completing their own investigation, was not achieved.

[CrowsNest]

Sinking pretty hard. Down to 82% already, and still nearly five days to go.

Seriously, when I've specifically been called out as one of the old guard, I would frankly be ashamed if I had to rely on old guard votes like this......

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

......to help me. Those three are oppose voters, and he went so far as to ping them. I know, snarky 'per that dick' votes like this are a baked in tradition of RfA, but isn't that the point?

It's toxic shit like this, stuff that can quite easily and called harassment if putting aside the need for a pattern, since there can be no other interpretation than this Wikipedia Administrator is marking these users out as unpersons, simply for daring to state an opinion they don't like, that the Wikiepditos are just so conditioned to seeing from their their rate Admin corps, their horrible, nasty, old guard, that they are blind to it.

Black Kite will sleep soundly in his bed tonight, knowing he won't even be warned for such a spiteful comment. And if he is warned because I've said it now, he'll still sleep soundly because on Wikipedia, being an Administrator means you can ignore warnings, safe in the knowledge nobody can be bothered to escalate if you piss in their face. As Fram did, in May.

This is the sort of shit that women specifically do not like, interpreting it as a very personal attack. Black Kite of course was a primary defender of Eric Corbett during the original Wikipedia gender wars, so we know he doesn't give two shits for such concerns. He's is an Administrator with an official black mark on his record from the mighty ArbCom, but hey, who cares about silly stuff like that? Watching already disciplined Administrators for further misconduct is just, well, such an adult, responsible thing, to do. Not Wikipedian's style.

[CrowsNest]

Already at 79% if counting the neutrals as opposition, which they arguably should in reconformation cases. The fucker is already starting to show less and less interest in what is being said. If it had been at 98% he'd have been all over it, cracking the jokes and generally laughing it up. The guy really is a proper old school Admin, they never stick around when the going gets tough. Probably already received a ton of emails advising him to stay away, we got your back buddy.

He already lost. This was meant to be a show of unity, a message of defiance to the Foundation. The only message here, is the community has real problems with Administrators who, when it comes down to it, really can't cash the checks their big mouths keep writing. He said 95% of the community was behind him in overruling the office. Even as an exaggeration, it's now looking every bit as arrogant and foolhardy as his detractors say he is.

The only person to get more opposes this year, was RexxS. If it finished now, he would only be in the bottom three lowest supported RfAs this year. And he has five days to go! As anyone knows, the figures usually only get worse from here, in the long tail, except in those cases like RexxS, when there is a desperate drive for last minute support from anywhere, canvassing, quid pro quo, bribery, you name it.

Come on Floquenbeam. How bad do you want it? Do you want it RexxS bad? Because that really would be pathetic.

[CrowsNest]

So desperate......

I do not believe for an instant that Floq encourages, condones, nor ignores bullying, and a wider lens must be used for that aspect.

......you don't need no fucking lens, any idiot can see from his own goddamned words that what he set out to do was bully the Foundation.

What does a bully do when they think they're being ignored? They lash out, they force people to look at them, to pay attention to them. They demand to be the centre of attention, they demand other people dance to their tune, comply with their demands, or else they'll just keep ratcheting up the drama. They force onlookers to pick a side, to declare if they are with the bully, or de facto against them.

Bullies force their chosen target to climb down, in a most publicly humiliating way, then they do a victory dance, expressing zero remorse, not least because they cannot even conceive of a world where what they just did, is wrong. Any regrets they ever have, are entirely self-absorbed.

Floquenbeam doesn't condone bullying? Ha. You people are priceless.

[CrowsNest]

That last guy also compared this to the Civil Rights struggle. Seriously.

Not right in the head. Not even close.

[Carrite]

This will be a useful future guide of who is in the WMF's pocket.

221 supports and counting, heading for a record high, I think.

tim

[CrowsNest]

Poor old Floquenbeam, says he feels "betrayed" by the Foundation.

How did he become the victim in all this? Oh, that's right, when he inserted himself into the drama to make it be all about him.

It wasn't enough for this guy to merely commit to words his pain and anguish, he had to act on it, he had to force them to acknowledge his suffering, his sense of betrayal.

Fuck. Me.

Ok dude, but, y'know, maybe at least try to acknowledge there were other victims involved? Not least of which, the guy who is still blocked, the complainants, and all the staff you have publicly denigrated.

Anyway, the whole rational/emotional argument? Settled, right? Nobody whose reactions were driven solely by an analytical reading of events, would even be remotely talking in these terms. Where does he even get this stuff? Betrayal!