Open main menu
Pretty busy in real life for the foreseeable future,
so I reserve the right to disappear for any length of time for any reason with no notice.
You shouldn't count on me for anything remotely time-sensitive.


Folly, thou conquerest, and I must yield!

Against stupidity the very gods
Themselves contend in vain.

--Friedrich Schiller


Based on your comments at the top of the page, I'm considering blocking you as NOTHERE, ALMOSTNOTHERE, and/or/but INCOUNTENANCE. This is your final warning (until the next warning, which may not be placed HERE).--Bbb23 (talk) 15:34, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

What's a "No There" block? --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:46, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
More than Almost No There.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:59, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
I think it may have been miswritten. It is a there is no there there block. Risker (talk) 00:02, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
I never misrite anything.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:11, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
There is no "There is No There There" Cabal cabal. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:32, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Freundliche Vision

There's the cabal of the outcasts thanking you for your appreciation of member (by what he did, like yourself) Malik Shabazz. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:46, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Same cabal - with a new member it seems - thanking you for a clear statement about not wanting to serve a certain system. I remember the last time well that I debated with myself to stay or not (2012). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:10, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Outcast making flowers bigger, with the message of the day: vision of friendliness, - the last thing I will give up. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I just had reason to look back in time, to musings in your talk archive on how little it can take to get banned here ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:18, 16 June 2019 (UTC)


  The Tank Man Award
You did it. You put yourself out there and you got their attention. And maybe, just maybe, even a start toward a resolution. You are a hero today. MelanieN (talk) 19:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Well now you're just embarrassing me. On a good day I have 1/100,000 the courage that guy had. Please don't say stuff like that. I mean, thanks, of course, but please don't. Some might interpret that as evidence my motivation is personal attention-seeking. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Curious, but which edit originally changed the image from the Tank Man to the current one for fair use? Enigmamsg 16:27, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Shortly after I posted the picture of the Tank Man (which totally illustrated what I wanted to say), The Rambling Man realized that it was fair use for the Tank Man article only, and replaced it with a generic tank. Pity, but he was right of course. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:40, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
If it makes you feel better, I saw it in it's illegal form. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:41, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Not A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Special Barnstar
I'm not sure that I agree with what you did, but I appreciate that you did what you could to defend your values. StudiesWorld (talk) 19:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Having thought more about it, I have come to the conclusion that I strongly disagree with you and believe that you acted inappropriately due to a lack of information. However, I think that we all got swept up into a mob mentality and you were not alone in wanting this action. I am ashamed of my role in this mob and hope that others will reconsider their positions. StudiesWorld (talk) 01:30, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm ashamed of your role too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:03, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
What is the alternative? The WMF has no interest in explaining themselves and they wish to turn into their personal fiefdom. Enigmamsg 16:30, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Note about desysopEdit

First, I'm really embarrassed about the mass of messages above. I mean thanks, but... geez. Anyone who can't stand a month without the admin bit is a little too attached to it anyway. I was fairly sure I'd get a slap on the wrist; the person/people who unblock Fram after this are much braver than I was.

I should have let Bish go first after all; while it might be bluster, WMF is making it sound like they'll deal more harshly with anyone else who unblocks Fram. Wikipedia will be worse off without her than without me, especially if she's not an admin for a long time while I'm only in the doghouse for a month. Bish is a grownup and can do whatever she wants - pretty sure I know what that will be once she wakes up - but I will certainly not be seeking to regain the admin bit until everyone who is desysopped for unblocking Fram is resysopped (if they want to be). Whether it's just Bish, or a half dozen admins, or all the admins; it isn't up to me anymore.

I will say to whoever wrote the WMFOffice message about my desysop, the insinuation that I might be tempted to evade this is deeply insulting wait, no, it's deeply puzzling. How, exactly, would I go about "attempting to evade the sanctions announced against me today"? Unless you mean using User:Aardvark Floquenbeam to resysop myself. OK, fair warning, I won't do that. {{eyeroll emoji}} --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:27, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  • I think it was more about the community attempting such evasion, for example by resysopping you. Ben · Salvidrim!  02:31, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Allow me to quote: "The same applies for any attempts made by Floquenbeam to evade the sanctions announced against them today". --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:35, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict)This day reminds me of the opening line of "Tale of Two Cities"...
        It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way – in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only.
      Lol, I was even driven to post on Jimbo's page.... Stay well. Shearonink (talk) 02:58, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict)Yeah, you're right, the full sentence is "The same applies for any attempts made by Floquenbeam to evade the sanctions announced against them today or by attempts by others to override that sanction" and I kinda conflated both into "resysopping Floq" since the only attempt to evade from you I could think of was "requesting resysopping". :p Ben · Salvidrim!  02:41, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
      • I also read that and I have no idea what they meant. I was going to ask about it. Unless they imposed some hidden sanctions other than the desysop, I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. To my knowledge, "evading sanctions" by someone who is not blocked would only mean violating some kind of topic or interaction ban that was implemented. Enigmamsg 02:38, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
        • They said Floq shouldn't "attempt evading". My reading is "Floq don't try to ask/encourage others to resysop you, and neither should the rest of the community encourage or perform a resysopping". Ben · Salvidrim!  02:41, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
          • Oh noes! I'm on double secret probation!! --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:43, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't think going a month without the admin bit is a big deal, but there are repercussions to being desysopped. This is the same as being desysopped by ArbCom (well, ArbCom is part of and WMF is not) in the sense that the bureaucrats view it as being 'under a cloud', so a new RfA is required to regain the bit. RfAs are always a gamble, which is why there are so few of them. I would think yours would fare better because the community overwhelmingly is against the WMF's interference, but I am not aware of any RfA being successful after an involuntary desysop (feel free to inform me otherwise). Enigmamsg 03:02, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I know of at least Sarek of Vulcan's, and I seem to recall one or two others being mentioned alongside. Ben · Salvidrim!  03:08, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I still am not aware of any, as Sarek was not involuntarily desysopped. He resigned and then went for RfA once (no consensus) and got it on the second try. It also could be argued that he didn't even need an RfA as ArbCom actually voted on him and decided to admonish him rather than desysopping him. I suspect if they had voted for a desysop, he never would've passed an RfA. Enigmamsg 03:17, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the link. I will note that the RfA you mention was 13 years ago, before the modern era of RfA, and I'm stunned it was closed as successful at 61%. Substantial opposition even back then, and in the modern era, it'd be worse. Editing to add: It appears he did not actually pass RfA. Taxman decided to overrule the community in order to give him back his bit. A bizarre case. link to announcement. So we still don't have a single instance of someone passing an RfA after being desysopped. Enigmamsg 03:43, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm pretty sure that, should it come to another RfA over this, Floq will end up setting a new record for number and percentage of supports on it. Hell, he's got my vote and I've never gone to the shithole that is RfA before. rdfox 76 (talk) 03:32, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I am pretty certain it will come to another RfA, FWIW. Personally, I would set my feelings about any admins aside and support any and all of them if they were desysopped by the WMF, simply because the WMF should not have the authority to do what they are currently doing (a "hostile takeover", if you will). Enigmamsg 03:43, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, once this mess is finally sorted (and I sincerely hope it is) they should re-sysop you. If not then, as above, the RFA is guaranteed. Solidarity and all that. GiantSnowman 08:44, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
You've managed turn the fourth userbox on your userpage into reality! Are congrats in order? Certainly feels like a deserving occasion... Mélencron (talk) 03:58, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
@Mélencron: - hah! That's brilliant, playing the long meta game Nosebagbear (talk) 15:49, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Admin's Barnstar
Thank you very much. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 04:32, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Barnstar of Diplomacy
There are never good reasons to compromise on obvious truth. Thanks for sticking to facts. (talk) 06:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Admin's Barnstar
I don't know if you know, but you've been listed at User:Swarm/recall#Users who can simply request the removal of my admin rights since I was promoted in 2011. I've long since forgotten why I felt that you belonged in that list in 2011. But you have reminded me why you were one of the users I trusted and respected most in those earlier days. MelanieN stole my sentiments—you are a hero. I've never had that thought about anyone throughout my career here, and I quite genuinely mean that right now. Don't doubt that you did the right thing. If a new RfA will be required, it will be my honor to wholeheartedly support, if not nominate you (though I know the line for co-noms will be disgustingly long). Thanks for all you've done and especially for what you did today. Best, ~Swarm~ {sting} 07:18, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Admin's Barnstar
For standing up for the community in the face of personal cost, thank you, Floquenbeam. starship.paint (talk) 07:35, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

A new barnstar for youEdit

  The Admin's Barnstar
Reading what happened in this whole mess, and this is absolutely deserved barnstar for such a brave act. Kudos. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 07:43, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  Bravery Barnstar.
A courageous action for sure. You have my vote should you need another RfA! In losing the Mop, you've shown us all that you were truly worthy of the Mop. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 08:37, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  Barnstar of Integrity
Thank you for your personal sacrifice in the service of good and right.

We have your back! - MrX 🖋 10:30, 12 June 2019 (UTC)


Hey Floq. I don't do barnstars, but you have earned 12 points. Spend them wisely. While proxying for a blocked user is of course a no no, you are not blocked, just temporarily de-adminned, therefore if you find any admin tasks what need doing over the next 29 days and 14 hours or so, feel free to ping me. Fish+Karate 10:39, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Same – in the way that any editor can inform any admin of admin actions they feel need to be taken. bd2412 T 11:19, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
    • And me of course. Doug Weller talk 11:31, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
      • I can't say much that wasn't already said, but thank you for sticking your neck out. And if the WMF should decide to get annoyed about your resysop request and give you the boot entirely, you do have my email address and are welcome to use it any time you may like. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:57, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

A brownie for you!Edit

  I was going to give you another Defender of the Wiki barnstar, but then I thought which would I rather have, a barnstar or a brownie and realized there was no contest! Doug Weller talk 11:30, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, Doug, but I think brownies are overrated. Plus, it's just one, and I am sure Floq does his thing with support from the family. Plz consider leaving a full-size Princess cake... Drmies (talk) 14:49, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

A barn for youEdit

So, the things which actually are not for barns are to be put on the thing which is not actually a barn? That actually makes sense, in a way. Qwirkle (talk) 13:13, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
So that's not a barn? Ach, those wily salesmen! You'll be telling me next that the helicopters in the background won't fly. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:28, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I knew you were going to do it because you said you were going to do itEdit

...but still <insert primal scream here>. You are now truly the deposed King from Ashara Kor. -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:02, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Oooh, a literary reference! --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:30, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Admin's Barnstar
Thank you for standing up for the community. ~Awilley (talk) 17:07, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
I'll just tag along on this thread. Thanks for doing this—not the unblocking-Fram bit specifically, but for having the courage of your convictions. The bottom line is that there are worse things than losing the admin bit, and it's vital to have an internal set of moral red lines. Thank you for providing an example of principle in action. (Feeling a bit of shame and the urge for self-justification, I'll add I've given a lot of thought over the years to the exact sets of circumstances under which I'd give up my admin bit and/or leave the project. For me personally, Mt. Fram isn't a hill I'm willing to die on, and I understand that may lessen your respect for me. I do have my own set of internal red lines, though, and I respect you hugely for standing up for yours). Also, if you'd like the password to my account to do some administrative work over the next month, let me know. I'm not here much anyway these days.   MastCell Talk 17:36, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Aha! Now I understand how WMFOffice thinks I might try to "evade my sanctions". No, thanks: I don't think I could handle suddenly having everyone thinking I was you, and therefore knew what I was talking about.
I wonder, though, if a refusal to use {{fbdb}} is a hill you're willing to die on? WMFOffice is watching you! And my first impression is they don't really have a sense of humor, or a sense of perspective....
I don't think of this as "Mt. Fram", which I would not really be willing to die on either. I think of this as "Mt. Potential Corruption". WMFOffice chose, as their very first target using a dramatically expanded scope, someone who relentlessly criticized WMF actions, who apparently made a friend of a WMF board member uncomfortable, and who was rude to people in power. If this was part of an initiative with broad support, and was transparent, with clear criteria and the right to appeal, and local consensus was respected, and Fram was like the 10th person banned, I wouldn't be upset. Some people above who've given me barnstars might be upset about how supportive of something like that I might actually be. But this isn't protecting people being harassed; this is removing a gadfly.
Good to see you, as always. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:53, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
You too! I get it, and I think you've expressed the issue very clearly. MastCell Talk 19:25, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposal that might interest you.Edit

See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Allow bureaucrats to quickly re-sysop admins temporarily de-sysoped by WMF for carrying out out community consensus. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:34, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer, I've commented there. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Another one for the pileEdit

  Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar
For doing what you thought was right, at great personal risk (well, as far as Wikipedia goes), and against the advice of many intelligent people. Whether they would admit it or not, WMFOffice clearly responded because of your statement of intent, and it seems likely at this point that they would not have responded at all otherwise.
We might not necessarily agree on all the details and maybe it won't even turn out that it was the right thing to do, but you believed it was and you stuck to your convictions. We should have more administrators with that fortitude. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:35, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Meh, my opinion is more or less worthless. It looks like they finally smartened up and decided to just wait it out, with no further reblocks or desysops. People will remain outraged for a week and then get distracted by something else. I trust Doc James' intention, but kind of doubt his ability to get real info out of them. All they have to do is drag the process out until the outrage dissipates. But thanks, yes, at least I did what I thought was right. So there's that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:08, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
I think there will be a substantial amount of interest as to whether a resolution has been reached following the meeting on the 14th. I don't believe "ignore them and they'll go away" is a viable strategy on this one. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:39, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
It's worked every other time something like this has happened. That's why everyone from Jimbo down advises patience, so it'll be forgotten. Which it will. Eric Corbett 22:28, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Spot on analysis Floq. We haven't seen eye to eye on a few different things, probably my defiencies more then anything but credit where credit is due. The right thing in the face of stupidity is painful but very necessary. I anticipate you receiving the tools back soon and you'd have my support if you do. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 21:41, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

A beer for you!Edit

  Redeemable for a real one if you're ever in the neighbourhood. Every admin action carries with it the chance of a desysop. You did what you thought was right, and that's all anyone can do. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:52, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

General note that I hope people who have posted above will seeEdit

I just don't have the energy to reply individually. I'm glad I unblocked Fram. I acknowledged before I did it that I'd be sad to be desysopped, but at peace with it, and I am: sad yet at peace. Still, can't say I'm motivated right now to be as active as I would have to be to reply to each of you. Plus I'm a little embarrassed at the attention and some of the more over-the-top phrasing. But I don't want it to look like I don't appreciate the kind words and thoughts. Especially when I reply to some people and not others. That's mostly a reflection on whether I happened to be doing something at the very moment I got the orange bar, or if I saw something particularly funny or raising an interesting question. So thanks everybody. I do appreciate it, whether it looks that way or not. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

LOL. There's apparently a rate limit in clicking the "thanks" button. Now even the MediaWiki software is sanctioning me. Patience, it says I just have to wait a few minutes. I'll get there.! --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
I'd just like to add that if you're forced to go through another RfA, should you choose/agree to do that, that would in my view constitute a "cruel and unnecessary" punishment given the state of RfA. The WMF's view on RfA is comical, or it would be if it wasn't taken so seriously by those who ought to know better. Eric Corbett 22:31, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
My current thinking on that, subject to change, is that I won't put myself thru that. As I said elsewhere, I'm too old for that shit. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:37, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
p.s. regarding something I saw you say elsewhere, I'd have done exactly the same thing whether or not Fram was an admin. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:39, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
I know you would. And one of the reasons I wouldn't have been an admin for long myself if I'd ever been given the tool set is that I'd have done exactly the same as you did. I fundamentally believe that you have to do what's right, and bugger the consequences. Your heart tells you what's "right", and so long as nobody gets hurt it's all good. Eric Corbett 22:48, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Would you have if the ban had not been enwiki-and-one-year only to tip you off? I've been having a hard time reconciling the difference between my reactions to Fram's ban - even before he started posting his side on Commons - and Ktr101's a few years ago, where I just accepted without question that the WMF must have had a proper reason. —Cryptic 22:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
That's a good question. I'd forgotten about that. But wasn't he an admin too? (looks) No, I guess not. A clerk or something? Anyway. I sort of recall that happening, and I think I might have only found out after the fact; I wasn't terribly active in August. I think my reaction at the time was "Wow, really? I would never have expected that", but otherwise yes, I did just assume they knew what they were doing. Did they ever say anything on-wiki about what happened? I guess the difference here is that Fram is a known gadfly where the WMF is concerned, so I was more skeptical than I would otherwise have been right off the bat. Plus, once I saw it was only, all possible legit reasons for the ban disappeared in my mind. Then, he posted a believable explanation of what happened on Commons. If they had just globally banned him, I'm not quite sure what I would be doing right now. Probably would have assumed he did something off-wiki and done nothing, to be honest. Probably shouldn't say that in public, might give them ideas. And it makes me look gullible. But I can honestly say it wasn't related to sysop vs non-sysop. More familiarity vs. non-familiarity. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:16, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
I've said what Cryptic said to multiple WMF people, and been given a response along the lines of "You're just looking for something to complain about." That may be the most distressing part of this whole thing to me. They haven't listened to multiple WMF-friendly editors/sysops/functionaries who have said this. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:32, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Tony, I'm especially interested that you said this. Earlier, you had been making the case that your experience with WMF made you trust that they would only act for good reason. I've been unable to reconcile that with what I've seen of their (non)responses to the community. Now, it sounds to me like you are having second thoughts, and that strikes me as quite significant. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:39, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Tony can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe he said that specifically about the people at T&S, not about the WMF in general. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:53, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I think that's right. But I also think that the approach taken by T&S is very much at the center of the controversy here. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:59, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
I do trust T&S, who, despite what people think given the current events, are usually very competent and act in a professional way. I was more talking about people who are uninvolved with T&S but are other Wikimedia staffers/contractors and community members. Having worked in a non-profit in the past, I can certainly understand the circle the wagons mentality with angry volunteers. At the same time, there are legitimate criticisms that can be made about the situation, even if the reason for the ban is ultimately correct. I can't say that since I haven't seen the totality of what they have. What I can say is that testing out new powers you have given yourself on one of the most high profile sysops on the largest project was a bad judgement call, and that in all likelihood, if there had been a global lock we wouldn't be discussing this now. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:03, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Trust is built up by experience of conflict, communicativeness over differences, and readiness to examine one's own motives. Someone thoughtlessly accused the 'community' reaction of support for Floq's, and Bishonan's actions, as 'mob' obsequiousness. Absurd. I found myself nodding in agreement with remarks all coming from admins with a different profile but sharing one trait - they had in the past sanctioned me:Seraphimblade's comments in particular were very cogent, but Sandstein, Weller and others as well etc. - These things are not personal, and that so many people who, as editors, might find themselves disagreeing on this or that, found common ground on a common principle, was deeply refreshing. We spend a significant amount of time on the unpaid sweatily banausic craftsmanship of actually writing this encyclopedia. If someone in the group - I don't know Fram from a bar of soap - is sanctioned after secret deliberations in Das Schloss, without the right of challenge and response - on a charge of the kind that we in the lower spheres have ample democratic mechanisms for resolving - then protest is not only normal, but exigent. The principle asserted by the ethereal echelons - whose prose by the way exemplifies exquisitely the ugliest style of hauteurish bureaucrapese - is Bushian, an assertion of executive privilege, which as everyone knows, turns out in its exercise to be myopic in its hieratic opacity. Myopic reminds me of μύωψ (múops) 'gadfly'. No democracy can, since Socrates' speech in the Apology, thrive without them:

For if you put me to death, you will not easily find another, who, to use a rather absurd figure, attaches himself to the city as a gadfly to a horse, which, though large and well bred, is sluggish on account of his size and needs to be aroused by stinging. I think the god fastened me upon the city in some such capacity, and I go about arousing, (προσκείμενον τῇ πόλει ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ ὥσπερ ἵππῳ μεγάλῳ μὲν καὶ γενναίῳ, ὑπὸ μεγέθους δὲ νωθεστέρῳ καὶ δεομένῳ ἐγείρεσθαι ὑπὸ μύωπός τινος, οἷον δή μοι δοκεῖ ὁ θεὸς ἐμὲ τῇ πόλει προστεθηκέναι τοιοῦτόν τινα, ὃς ὑμᾶς ἐγείρων καὶ πείθων καὶ ὀνειδίζων ἕνα ἕκαστον )

This was a case of unexplained performative death (albeit subject to redemption after the expiry of a year) executed on one of a vast group. You lose the warrant to waffle on about the Wikipedia 'community' if any of its members can be summarily sentenced in Star Chamber rituals, without recourse, and justify the measure by asserting that no one can protest the action taken. You also, collaterally, undermine the trust the very office vaunts itself as defending. Whatever the secret 'intelligence' behind the decision, there are obvious mechanisms which would allow the general arbitrating body which evaluates broader conflicts and assays innuendoes and assertions about editors' behavior to handle cases like this, without imperiling the reputation of this collective endeavor as a unique experiment in volunteer-based encyclopedic construction. The politics of wikipedia as a social experiment are profoundly democratic and had not Floq and Bish taken the last resort of risking their administrative rights to assert that, I think many would have read this episode as a dangerous breach in the principle of trust on which their participation is grounded.Nishidani (talk) 12:24, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
I don't go searching for them (I probably should), but whenever I stumble across a long post by you, @Nishidani:, I rub my hands together in anticipation of what I'm about to read. I know it's going to be good. That was elegantly stated, and a perfect distillation. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:31, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
WMFOffice, Nishandi’s post above should lend insight into why a large and varied segment of the community feels undermined by your recent actions and the manner in which they were taken and communicated. Please read it with care. –xenotalk 12:39, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Asking they/he/she/whatever is controlling that account to read anything at all is a bit optimistic, let alone with care. Enigmamsg 16:58, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Restoration of admin accessEdit

I see no valid reason for the removal of your administrator rights, which were granted to you by the enwiki community. ArbCom has not mandated their removal. I have accordingly restored them. Fuller reasons for my actions can be found at WP:BN WJBscribe (talk) 23:37, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, WJBscribe. That is an honourable thing to do, and dare I say braver than the unblocking I did. Which will no doubt be punished. I assume the vandal blocking I am about to do counts as "evasion of sanctions", so I'd better be quick. All the best to you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:40, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Seems like a good way to use the rights while we still have them [1]... WJBscribe (talk) 23:47, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Peanut gallery comment: I applaud this action, and hope that the blowback from the Foundation will be minimal. If you need to stand for RfB again, you are assured of my vote. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:51, 12 June 2019 (UTC)


Whew what times we live in Floq. In an attempt to bring a small amount of levity to the day I'll mention that WJBscribe has a user box mentioning that they live in London so any post on their talk page should spell it honourable :-) If my joke falls flat and is annoying you please remove it post haste. MarnetteD|Talk 23:56, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  Done [2]. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:58, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Smiles all round. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 23:59, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Admin's Barnstar
For standing up for the community and unblocking User:Fram Afootpluto (talk) 22:18, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Yet Another Well-Deserved BarnstarEdit

  The Admin's Barnstar
When you were given the choice between protecting your titles and privileges and advocating for the community, you chose the latter. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:46, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

The Cosmic Barn(ard's)starEdit


For your awe-inspiring unblock of Fram. (talk) 02:21, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Request for FloqEdit

Hi Floq!

I'm a reporter at BuzzFeed News and I'd like to speak with you about the Fram situation for a story I'm considering. If you have a moment, I'm or [redacted phone number]. Sorry for the inelegant way of reaching out to you — but I wasn't sure how to otherwise!

All best,

Joe — Preceding unsigned comment added by JosephABernstein (talkcontribs) 15:05, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm Floq's publicist. He has of course received several lucrative offers from journalists, theater directors, movie directors, etc. Indeed, he is currently considering a multi-zillion dollar offer to write a play called Long Day's Journey into Fram. We'll get back to you.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:12, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Bbb23, you goofball. I've already spoken to a reporter, and would be happy to speak to another. I'll email in a bit. That is, as long as the National Enquirer doesn't get to me first, and pay me money for exclusive rights, just to bury the story for a powerful friend.... Bbb23, please look into why it's taking so long for them to contact me while I talk to this nice young man? --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:21, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm on it! We're haggling over figures. Currently, the goofball is in their court.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:26, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
OK, Mr. Bernstein, email sent. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:30, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Nice young man Joe doesn't love you as much as you might think. He's already left similar messages at User talk:Iridescent and User talk:Praxidicae.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:32, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Well, and Fram too. You'll be relieved to learn I kind of assumed this wasn't love at first sight, so I'm not particularly crushed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:36, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
How do you know he contacted Fram? I don't suppose he's related to Carl Bernstein.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
see here Enigmamsg 15:43, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Oh, he used an IP. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:48, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversaryEdit

Seven years!

With great pleasure, and keep beaming, Floq ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:36, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Floquenbeam".