The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Floquenbeam[edit]

Final 113/27/5. Closed as successful by WJBscribe at 16:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Nomination[edit]

Floquenbeam (talk · contribs) –
Nomination from Pedro It is with pleasure that I nominate Floquenbeam for the sysop tools. Firstly, as noted on the talkpage of this RFA, Flo is not a new user, having edited previously under another account, now retired for privacy reasons. Alison's comments on the talk page are, I hope, sufficent to reassure the community that this is not a "SOCK" account but a returning user with a new name. So, on to the rationale;

• Flo is mainly active in gnoming and vandal fighting - but not without experience at getting articles up together too : [1] [2]
• Whilst around 3,500 edits may not be enough for some I think quality over quantity and the consistently pleasent attitude displayed in the edits weighs more heavily.
• Extremly active at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors where the sysop tools would be very handy.
• Regular at the Helpdesk, AN and ANI giving useful, well considered, and above all helpfull input.
• As an expereienced wikipedian Flo has, IMHO, the right mix of article, talk, user talk and project space edits.
• Not a huge number of speedy deletion requests, but accurate and in policy.

I appreciate that "returning user" may be a bit of a red flag, but I implore the community to look at the quality of Flo's edits, and their measured and calm approach to working in a colaborative atmosphere, and hope the community agrees that granting the sysop tools will be nothing but a benefit to Wikipedia with zero risk. Pedro :  Chat  12:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination from Majorly

I haven't done an RFA for ages now, so hopefully this will be good. I offered Floquenbeam a nomination some time ago now, and he declined, but now has accepted. He's one of those "thought he was one" candidates. While article work is somewhat lacking, I don't consider this a negative point (afterall, several fine administrators don't write articles). That is not to say he never has written an article, or edited one; I strongly believe if an editor makes a useful and productive edit to an article, they are a productive editor, and Floquenbeam fits that description. He makes himself useful in many areas of Wikipedia, from wikignoming and discussing policies, to helping to resolve conflicts and dealing with help desk queries. His wide-ranging editing areas are probably what made me notice him. The edit count isn't uber high either, but who cares? I don't believe there's a genuinely unhelpful edit to be found in his contribs. And he has been around a while, so it isn't as if the edit count has been boosted by playing on Huggle.

Additionally, he does not seem like the kind of person who is self-righteous, argumentative, negative, pessimistic or bitter, traits found in many administrators I have come across who still cling on to their tools (I also believe Floquenbeam would hand his tools in without a fuss if, for whatever reason, he lost trust in the community). He is always polite, courteous, and friendly, everything you could possibly want in an admin. I hope you agree with me and support him for admin. Majorly talk 16:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: With thanks to Majorly and Pedro for their kind words. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: I enjoy puttering about in various corners of Wikipedia, and I've done so in a few admin-ish areas. So far, things have worked well when I've requested admin action at AIV, RFPP, CSD, etc. The main reasons I want the additional tools is (a) I'm occasionally frustrated by the wait at some of these pages; (b) wonderful, altruistic person that I am, I'd like to help others needing admin help, or when things get backlogged; and (c) being able to see deleted edits makes dealing with vandals and socks easier, makes it easier to answer "why did my article get deleted" type questions at the help desk, etc.

I anticipate working in the following areas:

• WP:AIV. I've somehow morphed into a QA/QC person. I don't Huggle, and I usually patrol my (unmanageably) large watchlist rather then recent changes, but it's a decent percentage of what I do. I believe my judgement is sound in this area, I've never had an AIV report I made declined.
• WP:ERRORS. There seems to be a small (dedicated, but small) group of admins that routinely deal with this page. When any one of them is active, things usually get taken care of quickly. When none are online, items (occasionally embarrassing ones) can languish for hours. One more admin actively watching that page is a step in the right direction.
• WP:HD and WP:NCHP, where the ability to view deleted edits will make it easier to help with "why was my article deleted" type questions, or help fix page move errors that have gone all pear shaped.
• WP:AN/WP:ANI. If I have the tools, I'll be able to kibitz less and help more.
• CAT:CSD. I don't do much new page patrolling, but when I run across inappropriate pages, I've ((db))'d maybe a couple dozen (someone who can see deleted edits can give a more accurate count, I haven't kept track), and the requests have never been declined. Very occasionally I'll look at a few pages already in this category and remove a ((db)) tag if I don't think it's appropriate, but that can piss people off, so lately I've usually left that for an admin to do. I don't/won't get involved very much in A7 deletions, neither deleting nor declining anything non-obvious; I'm sure I'd be too kindhearted and let too much stay.
• WP:RFPP. I'm not too active in this area, but I know how it works and I'm willing to help out. I've only asked for protection of a handful of articles, but the requests have never been declined.
• WP:ANEW. I'm not too active in this area, either. I'm probably too willing to try a last round of talking before blocking, even when the bright line of 3RR has already been crossed, but I'm not too far outside the norms; I won't let it go on forever.

I do not anticipate closing XFD's; it's not an area I enjoy. I understand that nothing is keeping me from doing so if I get the tools, so if my few contributions in that area concern you, ask a question or two. But I very seriously doubt I'll ever close anything remotely non-obvious.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I'm not an article writer; I don't have any articles I can point to with pride. While a lot of my contributions are anti-vandalism, I take more pride, and enjoyment, in generally just trying to be helpful, including attempts at de-escalating disputes, or helping new users find their way around. So maybe my "best" contributions are the ones where I get a "thanks for the help" message on my talk page.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: Stress? No, not really. A couple of people have been annoyed/angry with me, I believe all but two such cases (see Q5) can be found on User talk:Floquenbeam, User talk:Floquenbeam/Archive 1 and User talk:Floquenbeam/Archive 2. I've a reasonably thick skin. I find it fairly easy to ignore insults or name calling, and am usually capable of de-escalating and responding politely (or, at worst, ignoring) even when insulted. In future, I'll discuss things until my patience or ability to AGF runs out, at which time I'll (a) just move on, if it isn't critical, or (b) ask for help at an appropriate noticeboard or talk page, if it is important.

Saving someone some time, I'll ask the now-semi-standard Q4, and what would be a good standard Q5, of myself

4. Did you ever edit Wikipedia prior to registering your present account? Would you be willing to disclose publicly or to key trusted editors any past, current, and future accounts?

A: Yes, I previously edited under another name. I retired that account for privacy reasons, so I don't want to publicly disclose its name. I've asked a Checkuser/Oversighter, Alison, to review the old account's edits, and verify on-wiki that I'm not hiding any blocks, bans, warnings, aggressive editing, or any other skeletons in the closet or bad behavior. I've also asked her to review my "privacy reasons", to verify it's a legitimate concern, and not a smoke screen. Her comments can be found here.

I do not have, nor do I plan to have, any undisclosed alternate accounts. If for some unanticipated reason that ever changes, I'll be happy to notify ArbCom, or whoever else the then-current policy says should be notified. I do have two publicly disclosed alternate accounts: User:Floquensock and User:Floquenstein's monster; if this RFA passes, their main use will be if I happen to be on a public terminal, as practice dummies for blocking, and if Bishzilla needs to be put in her place.

5. Discuss the times when you've done something you regret doing. What happened, and what did you learn?

A: I can think of only two real black marks, times when I've wished I could take something back.

• Here, back in June, when I WP:POINTily nominated an obviously notable article for deletion. This was in response to an ANI thread I stumbled onto, where an editor was being threatened with a WP:NLT block for objecting (in an admittedly inappropriate way) to the article's emphasis on some rather unflattering material. Rather than pointing out WP:DOLT at ANI and fixing it, I AFD'd the article instead. I'm a bit embarrassed about this for a couple of reasons. First, it wasted the time of those who participated; we all knew what the result of the AFD was going to be. Second, while I was busy being righteously indignant, User:Steve Crossin was busy actually cleaning up the article, which is what I should have been doing.
• Here, back in September, where in my rush to be wise and clever, I ended up being snotty and rude. FWIW, I did try to apologize/clarify here. It is a reminder that an extra 5 seconds between finishing composing, and hitting Save Page, is time well spent.

Nobody's perfect, and I try to learn from my mistakes.

Additional question from Keepscases

6. Would you sacrifice your own life to save Wikipedia? Why or why not?

A: It depends; are we talking a peaceful death, at an old age, while asleep and dreaming about Salma Hayek, or are we talking pouring lemon juice into multiple stab wounds? Actually, don't answer that, the answer is probably "No" no matter what method you're talking about. Why not? Because I'm just selfish that way. However, if it helps, I'd be happy to draw up a list of people I would be willing to sacrifice to save Wikipedia. I'd have to email it to you, to sidestep WP:NPA.

I wouldn't normally interrupt an RFA question, but this particular question is ridiculous. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 07:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional optional questions from Phantomsteve

7. Could you please answer the following questions related to CSDs:

a. In your own words, could you explain the difference between CSD A1 and CSD A3?

A. Neither one seems very common, really. A1 means there a little bit of text there, but you can't for the life of you figure out what they're trying to say. A3 means there's no "there" there; no encyclopedic content. Both are usually the result of someone experimenting, rather than vandalizing, so I'd be fairly gentle in my message on their talk page. If it looks like an honest attempt at something, I'll try (as an intellectual exercise more than anything else) to figure out what they're talking about. Not a perfect example, but for example, from yesterday, There's a hole in the sky, although tagged differently, could have been an A1, but out of curiousity I poked around a little to see what was up, and replaced the speedy tag with a redirect.

b. In your own words, could you explain what would cause you to decline a request for a speedy deletion using criteria A7?

A. OK, but first, as I mentioned in Q1 above, I will tend to steer away from deleting, or declining, A7 speedy noms. The key with A7's is a credible assertion of notability. If the article said "John Q. Frankenhoople is the most awesome man in the Universe", I'd delete even though there's an assertion of notability, because it isn't credible. However, if a good faith user creates an article has a fuzzy assertion of natabilty, I think we should err on the side of letting it breathe for a little while, mostly in order to not chase away a potential future contributor. I've left a message on user talk pages before, suggesting that an author read WP:NOTE before continuing, so they don't waste their time, but without threatening to tag the article myself.

Actually, I'll take this opportunity to clarify that comment up in Q1. I'll avoid deleting or declining A7's that aren't blindingly obvious, but I'll certainly delete an obvious A7 and decline one with an obvious credible assertion of notability. It's the fuzzy ones I plan to leave for others.

c. In your own words, could you explain what would cause you to accept a request for a speedy deletion using the relatively new criteria A10?

A. Well, it's hard to improve on the wording there; I can read, and that's what I'd do. This appears to be mostly for cut and paste moves to odd titles, although I suspect most of the time a simple redirect would make more sense.

8. You have been editing an article Article-1, adding information, sorting out layout, etc. Another editor (editor-123) reverts some of your edits, with the edit summary "removing of unsourced information". How do you deal with this, which admin tools (page protection, page deletion, blocking, etc) or other methods you would use to deal with it, and which policies/guidelines/essays you would use in justification?

A. Aha! Trick question! I would not, of course, use any admin tools. If I really had added contentious unsourced information, then I would give myself a little troutslap, and either find a source, or thank the editor for noticing my screwup. If it was sourced, I'd explain why on the talk page, and ping the editors user talk page to make sure they were aware of the comment. In the few instances when I've been reverted on content, I just stick to WP:1RR, and either discuss on the talk page, or just let it slide as not worth arguing about.

9. In your own words, could you explain what the difference between a block and a ban is?

A. Meh. I can't decide whether to crib an answer from one of the 150 previous successful RFA's where this question was asked, or paraphrase from Wikipedia:Banning policy#Difference between bans and blocks, so I think I just won't answer, in the hope that it inspires people to retire this old chestnut.

Additional optional questions from Doc Quintana

10 Cooldown blocks: what's your take?

A I suppose two "I refuse to answer on the grounds that this question is stale" answers would come off as too snotty, huh? Since the latest and greatest definition of "cooldown block" at WP:COOLDOWN defines it as a block intended solely to calm an editor down, with no other disruption going on (my emphasis) I'd agree with the policy that this isn't the case very often. If someone isn't being disruptive (or doing some other bad thing, like, I don't know, violating copyrights all over the place or something) I see no reason to try to force calmness down their throats. Their state of mind is their problem, not mine. That said, if I thought it would make things better instead of worse, I'd have a quiet word with an angry editor, letting them know that maybe they're headed in an unproductive direction.

11 Do you believe that "fallen" users can be rehabilitated, and if so, how?

A I don't know about "rehabilitated"; they aren't criminals, and a block/ban isn't prison. And situations vary so much from one person to another that it makes little sense to talk about "how", like there's only one best way. But yes, in general, editors who have been asked to leave can change their mind and become useful/welcome. I like the idea of ((secondchance)) for relatively short term disruptive editors who want to "start over"; it's a handy way of separating honest requests for another chance from dishonest ones. I like the idea of Durova's WP:standard offer for longer term editors; I suppose that is more like rehabilitation, in a way. In general, once an editor has been identified as "fallen", and blocked/banned, giving them a chance to start over is nearly cost-free; you unblock, and if they restart anything resembling the problem editing, you reblock. The cost associated with "fallen" editors is usually in reaching the stage where they're recognized as "fallen" in the first place.

12 What is a "Rouge"/"Rogue" Admin, IYO?

A Mostly used self-referentially, it generally refers to people who see themselves as operating in a "process be damned" kind of way. Like the term "politically incorrect", it means different things to different people. Some just mean that they value WP:IAR, which I agree with; others appear to simply value their own judgement over that of others, which I don't.

Requisite rhetorical verse requirement by Proofreader77

13 PREAMBLE: This requirement was foreshadowed on your talk page, and now comes to fruition ... at a propitious moment, three days before the 9th anniversary of Wikipedia ... and perhaps an Arbcom case surrounding the two blocks Proofreader77 received amidst giving $1,000 to Wikipedia (smiling but not joking).

REQUIREMENT: Please compose and present one Shakespearean form sonnet illuminating something about Floquenbeam in the role of Wikipedia administrator.

A This might take a little time, Proof. (How about a hiaku and you go neutral?) Watch this space; something will appear here before the RFA concludes. Whether it meets your requirements remains to be seen...

(Haiku? Do I look like Switzerland to you? LoL) Take as much time as you like ... And remember what's at stake — whether a character with Floquenbeamian contours is immortalized in the Wikipedia Western (musical) ... or not. ^;^ -- Proofreader77 ^(interact) 02:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A request and a question from Skomorokh

14. You mention not having a great deal of experience in writing articles, and so I am interested in learning how you might handle assessing disagreements over articles that require administrator intervention. With that in mind, I wonder if you could discuss instances of substantive content disputes you have been involved in or alternatively give your assessment of some current thorny content disputes (e.g. those at ANI or AWN).

A I haven't been deeply involved in "substantial" content disputes. I'm perfectly willing to give my opinion about something if I run across a dispute, but it's only that - an opinion - and I seldom feel strongly enough about it to "fight" for it. If I persuade others, fine. If I don't, fine. If memory serves, my most involved participation in content discussions matches pretty closely with my most frequently edited talk pages from X!'s tool on the talk page:

• Talk:Rorschach test/Archive 9#A quick reality check and Talk:Rorschach test/Archive 10#Another suggestion for compromise
• Talk:Names for U.S. citizens#try again
• Talk:2009 Jupiter impact event#Silly title
• Talk:Grief porn#RfC: How do we decide the above?
• Talk:Western culture/Archive 3#Huntington's Map from the "Clash of Civilizations"
• Talk:Diablo Cody#Removal Private life and marriage to Jonny Hunt

I'm not sure what you mean by "assessing disagreements over articles that require administrator intervention"; if you're talking behavioral stuff, then look at (for example) Talk:Ribbon (computing)#Patent controversy section, or a random sample of posts to AN/ANI, where I usually try to get people to stop fighting and start talking. This approach doesn't always work, but it's usually worth a shot. If you're talking content stuff, then there's not a lot an admin can, or should, do; adminship doesn't give you any special power as an editor in a content dispute. Offhand, the only content-related interventions I could see myself making as an admin are:

• Evaluating a talk page to see if there is consensus for an ((editprotected)) request
• Enforcing the removal of potentially BLP-violating content until consensus determines whether it meets the BLP policy or not
• Theoretically, uninvolved admins are sometimes requested to determine consensus at an RFC, but I don't see myself doing that much, if at all; too much like AFD to me.

I'm much more likely to continue kibitzing in content discussions, providing my opinion but not breaking out the tools.

15. What proportion of your supporters below do you think would recognise your former username? Feel free not to respond if doing so would threaten your privacy.

A Not comfortable going into detail, and even if I was comfortable giving such hints, it probably wouldn't be fair. Since no one can review former edits, I'm asking to be judged solely on edits in last 16 months, and it wouldn't be fair to start hinting about earlier relationships.

Additional questions from Microcell (talk)

16. Can you speak any languages other than English?

A Un poquito de español.

17. What's your opinion of the Volapük Wikipedia? Is it worth deletion?

A Didn't know it existed until I answered the question at WP:NCHP yesterday. No knowledge of it, so can't really answer anything about it.

I don't know this language either. :) But this may serve as a portion of information for thought.--Microcell (talk) 19:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from JayHenry (talk)

18. Did you run for RFA with your previous account?

A Similar to my Q15 answer: I'm sorry, I just don't want to discuss my previous account any more than I have already. If this causes anyone to oppose, so be it; I've been as upfront and transparent as I'm comfortable with, and I hope it's enough.

Well, wait a second here. There's all this stuff about how pristine your other account was. And yet I have the sneaking suspicion that you ran for RFA, failed, and therefore, while you may have a clean blocklog, it's not really as pristine an account as you're making it sound. People opposed for a reason, no? There's a thin line between lack of transparency and what would more accurately be considered dishonesty, and I can't tell what side of the line we're on here. --JayHenry (talk) 03:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional questions from Hobit (talk)

19. Would you object to disclosing your old identity to a bureaucrat who could verify the things said by Allison on the talk page?

Comment - I'm in discussion with a bureaucrat right now over over the matter - Alison ^❤ 17:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also aware of the old account and confirm what Alison has written. Majorly talk 17:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A I had hoped Alison's reputation for trustworthiness would have been enough, but if Alison would like to disclose the name of my previous account to a 'crat, I have no objection. I'd prefer that it not be broadcast all over the 'crats mailing list, or the functionaries list, or anything like that, and I'd prefer the 'crat not share it with other 'crats. Even if each person is 99.5% trustworthy, if you raise 99.5% to a large enough power, it becomes a small number.

Per your comment here, it's now been disclosed to one bureaucrat whom I personally trust and highly regard, and one bureaucrat only. They will communicate their findings to the bureaucrat team as a whole. I hope this can go some way towards allaying some of the concerns that people may have - Alison ^❤ 18:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

• Links for Floquenbeam: Floquenbeam (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Floquenbeam can be found here.

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Floquenbeam before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

Why would someone support with "every reason to back the candidate", and then ask a bunch of questions? Tan | 39 19:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• They are not for my benefit, but for other editors who haven't decided yet. As the candidate has said that they intend on working on CSD, then I thought it might be an idea to ask some questions in this area. I'd be very surprised if the answers changed my !vote, but they might help someone else make a decision. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that's very silly. If someone is having a hard time making up their mind, they're free to ask a question. But I agree with Tan, it's rather odd. iMatthew ^talk at 23:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• 1. 16 and 17 seem very loaded to me. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm worried about your answer to question 18. Whilst I respect that your privacy is paramount, I don't think a yes or no answer would compromise your identity in this case. Sure, we could go see a list with every unsucesssful RfA but to anyone but a checkuser, it's impossible to tell if it's you. I'm concerned that your refusal to answer that question could be hiding a secret past RfA where something arose which could compromise your ability to pass this time round (assuming there was a first time). Could you, or someone who knows your past identity, confirm (without going into detail) whether there was a past RfA, and/or whether there were any vital details which could look negatively on your account now? Again, I'm not asking for specifics, I'd just like a wee bit more clarity, as much as I respect your request for privacy. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  16:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I think Flo is really not going to answer this Cyclonenim, although I fully understand the concern you have. As Flo notes, if it attracts opposes or misses a support because of this issue, then so be it. I can personally assure you that your concerns, which I understand and respect, are without foundation - but I think that's about all one can say given Flo's desire that the previous account is now, from Flo's POV, irrelevant. Best. Pedro :  Chat  16:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say that the more I think about this, the more concerning it is. Couldn't any privacy issues be oversighted on your old account? I don't like supporting a candidate who has a significant amount of edits that are unavailable for vetting. The secrecy around it is strange, and while perhaps some editors can take Alison's word as gospel, I cannot. Tan | 39 16:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the issue is that the real name was used as an account name, then no, it could not be oversighted without a lot of disruption. Also, older disclosed personal information is available at other venues other than Wikipedia (mirrors, toolserver, etc.) Oversighting them now, long after the fact, thus actually increases, rather than decreases, the chance that privacy will be violated as the supressions may draw curious eyes which can then use the mirrored material to see what it was. –xeno^talk 16:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. However, at this point, it's all conjecture given Floquenbeam's reticence regarding the situation. If they do not want to reveal the past account, I have no problem with that - but I do have a problem supporting a candidate without full disclosure of editing. Call it principle. Tan | 39 16:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'm not trying to dissuade you from that. –xeno^talk 16:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to any "past RfA" - Alison, could you possible reassure us on that issue: did Floquenbeam ever apply for adminship (regardless of result, even if it was SNOW'd in a few mins) under his old account? -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Struck question, as candidate has clearly shown in Q18 that they do not want to even reveal such details -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Luckily Pedro your word is one of those which I trust. Thanks for the reply. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  17:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I know this bothers some of you, and I’m not trying to be coy. If I could go back in time and edit with the name “Floquenbeam” from the very beginning, I would. But I can’t. I thought long and carefully about how I wanted to handle this before I started the RFA, and from the beginning I’ve known that I’m perfectly willing to give up adminship if more information than what I’ve provided is required to get a consensus here. I did not want to hide the fact that there was a previous account, as clean and painfree as that might have been. For reasons I won’t discuss, I want to give the absolute minimum amount of information that can be used to sleuth out the name of that first account. If I start answering easy questions that don’t give away much, then when I start refusing to answer followup questions, the fact that I chose which questions to answer and which not to answer is, in itself, information. If I tell you whether or not the old account name was 12 letters long and started with “XyzQ…”, then when I refuse to answer whether it started with “G”, it tells you something. So no, I don’t want any of the three people who know both account names to provide any more information than they already have.

  I firmly believe that if you knew the name of the old account, you would not have any significant additional reason to oppose. Obviously that’s to be taken with a grain of salt. Three other people know the name of that account, and Alison, Pedro, and Majorly have all said the same thing. Go back and read Alison’s comments; I think you’ll find there are really no loopholes there. There is no secret Alison-Pedro-Majorly cabal conspiring to sneak a Manchurian Candidate in underneath the radar.

  That said, I’ll not badger anyone opposing because they don’t believe I’m being honest about this, and I’d ask anyone who agrees with this approach not to badger anyone about it either. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I know your above comment was directed at everyone, I would like to point out that my withdrawn support did not culminate in an oppose or neutral vote. Again, call it principle, but while I can occasionally take nominator's judgment under advisement, it's always for edits I can vet myself - and in this case, I do not have all the evidence; thus I cannot cast a vote. I hope that's understandable. Tan | 39 18:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd love to know where the synthesis that this candidate is trying to include the previous account's contributions without revealing the account has come from. Perhaps an opposer can provide some diffs. Flo specifically HAS NOT included those edits as part of a summary, and neither have I or Majorly as noms. Some editors clearly vote before reading. Pedro :  Chat  19:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Please note this dicussion Alison had stated there's not much to know and Another user believes that the Candidate had prior RFA and if it is the case then Alison's statement is inaccurate as a prior RFA is something to know and feels Alison could state that the candidate did not have a RFA it will in no way help identify a user as millions of users did not have a RFA. As the candidate does not wish to go into it one hopes We can respect the privacy and let the Closing Crat determine and factor the votes if the candidate had a RFA as many users appear to voted either way based on Alison's statement.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support[edit]

1. Strong support - they are already an admin, they just need the bit flipped on. –xeno^talk 16:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support with gusto! Floquenbeam is certainly trustworthy and would be a fantastic addition to the list of administrators. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 16:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Strong Support As co-nom. Pedro :  Chat  16:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Majorly talk 16:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. Thought you were an admin already, see no problems :) Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  16:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Support I trust he'll the job right. ~DC _{Talk To Me} 16:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

6. Absolutely. Xeno said exactly what I was thinking. JamieS93 16:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   I remain firmly supportive (putting aside all Alison-Pedro-Majorly conspiracy theories ;-) ). Floquen has handled this privacy matter wisely and tactfully – I wonder how it could be handled any better. It's never worth it to risk your real life info. And if, at this point, his former account was tracked by other users, there's that much more attention and focus on the account's prior revealing info. I commend Flo for standing up for his privacy. This situation proves that Flo has decent judgement, and coupled with the rest of his solid contribs, there is no reason for me to hesitate. JamieS93 21:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

7. Support I see no cause for concern, and every reason to back this candidate. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
8. Record of positive contributions, no obvious signs of kookery. The AFD mentioned above was a bonehead move, sure, but he recognizes this. A mistake is no big deal- we all make them. Friday (talk) 17:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support Why not? The candidate has a record of strong contributions, is friendly and helpful and not ashamed to admit mistakes - something which is very important in an admin. The only reason to doubt their suitability would be the previous, undisclosed account - but if Alison says that there were no concerns with that account, I trust her. And from what I can review, this candidate will do a fine job. Regards SoWhy 17:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Support Tan | 39 17:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)Support withdrawn due to lack of transparency; see discussion section Tan | 39 16:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

10. Strong support. Good attitude, mature user, lots of contributions; no reason to oppose. Ironholds (talk) 17:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support, speedy tagging in your del contribs looks good to me, otherwise per noms and Alison. ϢereSpielChequers 17:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
12. Wait a minute... he isn't already?--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 17:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support - I've seen Floquenbeam around doing good work. I think this editor is unlikely to misuse the mop. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support What I have seen of Floquenbeam's editing (example, at User_talk:Drew_R._Smith) has been impressive in terms of cluefulness, temperament, and inclination to deescalate disputes. Will make a fine addition to the admin corps. All the best. Abecedare (talk) 17:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
15. They're not one already!? What took so long? The Thing _{Editor Review} 17:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support Keepscases (talk) 17:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
17. Certainly, per the two respected nominators. I see nothing that would suggest this editor is incapable of using the tools responsibly. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support no reason to think they'd misuse the tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support - I see Floquenbeam around everywhere, making great contributions to discussions, this is someone I would certainly trust with the tools. Addendum: the answer to question #6 is just awesome. -- Atama頭 17:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support, acknowledging your failings and mistakes is an excellent trait to have, and can be very difficult. An excellent candidate, best of luck. --Taelus (talk) 18:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support, based on trusting Alison's recommendation and on the answer to Q6. ⇦REDVERS⇨ 18:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support. It's a green light from me. Useight (talk) 18:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
23. Yessir.  GARDEN  18:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support - an excellent, knowledgeable, and trustworthy candidate. --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 19:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support Şłџğģő 19:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
26. Self-righteous-argumentative-negative-pessimistic-bitter-still-clinging-on-to-my-tools support (per Majorly's nom). :P In all seriousness, Floquenbeam is a sensible, mature, calm, level-headed individual. S/he clearly gets it; I see a substantial benefit from providing clueful people with a few extra buttons, and I have no concerns here. History of prior account is not a concern given that behavior with the old account was apparently quite upstanding and constructive as well, and I completely trust Alison as to the details. And per answer to Q6, because it's funny. MastCell ^Talk 19:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support. Article writing is great but there is many parts to a machine and his work is useful. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support No concerns and WP:WTHN. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 19:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support and I like answers 5, 6, and 9. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support I trust Pedro's judgment as a nominator (arrogant much?) and I've seen Floquenbeam around enough times to believe he can be trusted, he's already showing good judgement without the tools, [3]--Jac16888^Talk 20:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
31. Weak support per Taelus (talk · contribs) – I'm not 100% happy with the former-account-jiggery-pokery, but Alison (talk · contribs) and the nomination statement written by Pedro (talk · contribs) put my mind at rest somewhat! ╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢ 21:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
32. Slight Support I say Slight because I made a few more contributions than you did, but what I understand is that the quality of the edits are more important than the quantity. Fine, go for it. PS: I like the answer you made to question 5! :) Minimac94 (talk) 21:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
33. Strong Support I can think of no one better suited for the position. Basket of Puppies 22:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support Trustworthy to me.  fetchcomms☛ 22:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support. Sensible, trustworthy and knows what he's doing. I can see no reason to make me think Floquenbeam would be anything other than an even greater asset to the project with a few extra tools. HJMitchell You rang? 22:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support per answer to question 6. Admin dealings could always use more levity. In all seriousness, candidate appears to have the right attitude, and, I trust, the right knowledge. Would welcome as an admin. Throwaway85 (talk) 22:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
37. Allie! Allie! Allie! Oi! Oi! Oi! —Dark 22:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support - No concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 23:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support - Nice, helpful, and a definite asset to the project. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support with forty supports in the space of eight hours, you must be doing something right. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support - I can't really come up with anything that concerns me. Everything seems solid. Cocytus [»talk«] 01:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
42. Strong Support per nom and Atama.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 01:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
43. Heck yes. I've been waiting for this. ceranthor 01:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support No problems, thanks to Alison's comments, and more main page admins are always needed. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 02:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
45. Sure, why not? Master&Expert (Talk) 03:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support No problems. Warrah (talk) 03:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support - no issues. Rollback rights, sufficient number of edits, and a Wikisloth! Bearian (talk) 04:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support - Richard Cavell (talk) 06:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support per nomination. PeterSymonds (talk) 10:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
50. Support Sane positions at XfD. Collect (talk) 11:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
51. Certainly. Excellent answers all round, showing good humour which will be needed when prodded with the inevitable sticks, and all round solid contributions. I don't understand anyone complaining about lack of transparency, when the vast majority of people on WP do so editing under a username, rather then their own name. GedUK  12:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
52. Support per "oh, he's not already?" --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
53. Certainly. Timotheus Canens (talk) 15:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
54. Support Quality edits over qunatity. Trust user, and level of activity currently is satisfactory, the question responses are good. Ottawa4ever (talk) 15:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
55. Support per nom, and I like his answers, cheeky but respectful :) RP459 (talk) 17:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
56. Support I have seen this editor around wikipedia and they seem dedicated to bettering the encyclopedia.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
57. Support I often don't bother when an RFA is going this well to throw my support in, but I am sufficiently impressed with the candidates demeanor and policy knowledge, which are the actual skills an admin needs to do a good job. I also like how he(?) ttok the risk of identifying his own mistakes in the above answers, that's a level of honesty and transparency that shows he cn be trusted with a few extra buttons. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
58. Support - You bet! smithers - talk 00:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
59. Support I very clearly remember supporting Floq before. Seriously, stop screwing with my head and just get the damn bit already! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
60. Support I can't see any problem. -- Marek.69 ^talk 03:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
61. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Your sig formatting makes it appear as though you're user Operation Big Bear, voting 'Wizardman' on this RfA. :) —what a crazy random happenstance 04:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Maybe we could have four columns: Support/Oppose/Neutral/Wizardman. I'd "vote" wizardman here...Doc Quintana (talk) 18:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I support Floquenbeam, but I'm leaning wizardman. -- Atama頭 18:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

62. Weak support, if for nothing else than a sense of humour. Honestly, I'd have liked to see you wait until you have built up a longer and more numerous editing history under your new name, as I'm not a big fan of "seems OK" votes, but I'll AGF and give my support. —what a crazy random happenstance 04:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
63. Support Per responses at the help desks. TNXMan 16:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
64. Support Judging from contributions and answers, seems quite trustworthy to help the project. Jujutacular ^T · C 18:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
65. Support as I have seen Floquenbeam around and this user has the right attitude to become an admin in my opinion. The answers to the questions confirm my view. ---- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 19:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
66. Support Seems to be a clueful editor, satisfactory answers to questions, no concerns about previous account. GlassCobra 19:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
67. Support Good policy knowledge, previous account does not bother me. jni (talk) 20:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
68. Support, with multiple editors I trust attesting to the fact that the previous account was noncontroversial, I can treat it as an entirely neutral factor in my opinion of your RfA. Taking solely your contributions as "Floquenbeam", I'm entirely happy to support based on your demonstrated experience, wholly sensible behaviour and well-reasoned contributions. ~ mazca ^talk 22:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
69. Support - worth a trial with the tools. Better than even chance will be a net positive. Would like to see more article content though. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
70. Support Give up the lack of transparency act. If somebody isn't comfortable editing on an account, they have a right to vanish, a right to edit somewhere else. There is nothing wrong with good faith, hard working, net positive "socks". I don't even want to call them socks 'cause that word has cause so much trouble at RFA in the past.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 23:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Ah, yes, it's all a big "act" that some people consider it a problem that this editor wants sysop access and cannot account for all their edits. You might disagree, but try not to insult other people while you do it. Tan | 39 00:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Even though I support Floquenbeam in this RfA, I also have to support Tan and others who are uncomfortable about the lack of transparency. Fair or not, it does cast a shadow over any candidate to conceal a previous account. The right to vanish and edit as another person is fine, and is a right that we should maintain, but you have to consider than an RfA is a person asking for the community to trust them with some potentially dangerous tools. Personally, I trust Alison and Majorly to vet the old account, that's enough for me, but I can't begrudge anyone who doesn't think that's enough. -- Atama頭 01:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

71. Support - no problems that I can see; not concerned by any of the issues in the Oppose section. I don't think the previous account is a problem - Floquenbeam has been as honest about it as we could reasonably except s/he to be, and Alison has confirmed that there's nothing dodgy being hidden here. Robofish (talk) 00:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
72. Support I like it that you edit for vandalism from your own watchlist, rather than trying to make a name for yourself. You seem to interact well with other editors in a neutral manner, as if it's about creating the encyclopedia, nothing else. You've made a few mistakes, some heated. Well, that's not very interesting in your overall bland record of editing wikipedia. Please don't turn away from editing and devote too much time to adminship, wikipedia needs more editors like you, and if you can be the same sort of admin as you are editor, then wikipedia needs more admins like who can lead by example in the behavior department. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 01:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
73. Support Strong candidate; experience is fine, in my opinion. Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
74. Support When I first saw this RfA, I did a double-take; I was sure that Floquenbeam was already an administrator. Based on my observations of this candidate's experience in the project namespace, I am fairly sure that he will be an excellent admin. He certainly has the right temperament to do so, with a calm, rational approach to issues and an ability to defuse unnecessary drama everywhere from article talk pages to ANI. Looking through Floquenbeam's history as an editor, I am particularly impressed with his work at WP:ERRORS over a long period of time, and with his exceptional work at WP:NCHP. Simply put, I think Floquenbeam is exactly the kind of admin we need at those pages. In all honesty, I was considering voting "neutral" in this RfA because of the candidate's general lack of article-building experience. He hasn't created a single article (although he created one disambig page), and HP Newquist is the only article which he's edited 25 times or more. So far as I can tell, San Juan Islands National Wildlife Refuge is the only article he characterizes as his "own" content work (cleaning up plagiarism and rewriting), and only 35% of his edits are in the mainspace. I think understanding article-building is absolutely crucial, and I am tempting to withhold my support on that basis. However, due to exceptional work in the project namespace, particularly at WP:ERRORS, I've decided to support anyway. Besides, the prior account issue is no big deal, as three or four trusted editors have verified that there're no skeletons in the candidate's closet. Good luck, Floquenbeam. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 04:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
75. support I personally tend to think we should go more in the direction of full public accountability for anyone in a position of individual authority, and i would almost never support an admin candidate with this sort of situation,. This is the exception. Partly because of the excellent work that is visible, partly because of the good humor and patience with the answers--but largely because of my trust in each of the three endorsers who know the identity. Any one of them would have been sufficient for me to support, and now I have no doubt whatsoever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) see [4]
76. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
77. Support. Aside from everything else mentioned, accepting your mistakes is something that I see as very important. JulieSpaulding (talk) 07:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
78. Support, per Q6; because there are too many admins with no sense of humour. No red flags raised for me here. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
79. and I almost missed this due to r/l based absence from the wiki. Dang, that would have been a bad way to start off the new year. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
80. Support: this guy manages to get people to stop killing each other with walls of text, and start actually communicating and making babies content. This is a skill that we need as much as writing content, or indeed fixing it every time I screw up a double redirect. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
81. Support, much for the same reason of Elen of the Roads. Has clue, shares it, produces calm rather than violence. We need more people like that with the mop. Even the rebuke of Giano, his friends, and enemies, which he apologizes for, makes sense, and if that's Flo's worst, it's better than many current admins' best. --GRuban (talk) 22:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
82. Support, trustable editor. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
83. Good candidate. Pmlineditor ∞ 13:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
84. Support No issues at all with this candidacy. I'm sure that Floquenbeam will make good use of the tools and we need more admins with his dedication and sense of humor. Damn good editing as well. hydnjo (talk) 14:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Addendum: The more I read the rationale of those opposing this nomination the more convinced I become of the arbitrary nature of those oppositions. This candidate has clearly demonstrated an expertise in dealing with conflict resolution and vandalism reversion which is of paramount importance and as valuable as WPspace contribution. We all contribute in ways that best utilize our native talents and to challenge Floquenbeam's worth to administer the tools for reasons as arbitrary as his percentage of edits in WPspace is certainly, well, arbitrary. Those whose talents lie primarily as prosemasters or photoshoppers ought not criticize those others who may be less prose/photo-centric but contribute to the overall robustness of WP in ways that are somewhat less "profound" in WPspace. Many diverse talents are needed here to accomplish a finely polished end product and the protection of the fine prose is IMHO a necessary ingredient which Floquenbeam provides in an exemplary manner. Also, question #6 offends me, this is supposed to be serious. hydnjo (talk) 22:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
85. Support No reason not to. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 18:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
86. Support For me, the speculative concerns about the previous account do not go anywhere near outweighing the strong reasons to support (being the answers to the questions and the candidate's record).--Mkativerata (talk) 23:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
87. Support It's taken me five days to come to a decision here, but I've decided to support based on the rationale that the candidate's edits as Floquenbeam look great, and even if the edits on the other account weren't so great, they ended in mid 2008, so that's long enough of a gap for me to ignore. And I do believe Flo when he says that he's only trying to hide his identity, not an embarrassing edit history. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 00:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
88. Support For those who expect a touch of humor, my rhetorical matrix statistical analysis of all communication by all participants on this page indicate there is a nonzero probability that Floquenbeam is Majorly's mother. :-)
    Interactive quality: My support for Floquenbeam is based on limited interaction, but in rhetorical matters my judgment is is rarely off. The spirit and good humor of the candidate are well suited to the role of administrator — with a clear idea of when the "weight" of the role should have not weight. One concern regarding anyone given the tools is whether they have sought the role because of the power of authority granted within the social virtual space. (Some enjoy bullying others, and such people should not be granted the tools.) I have witnessed no element of character which would be problematic, but of course, they have not had the bit. Let us say that I trust this editor.
    My comments on this project talk page regarding issues raised:
    +The "gospel" of Alison (I believe Alison's analysis is unproblematic.)
    +The myth of "content creation" (Contrary to the popular perception, we 500 [create the environment of creation, not just content] )
    +The edit count issue (should also not be problematic)
    -- Proofreader77 ^(interact) 06:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
89. Support mainly due to an excellent answer to the slightly ridiculous question 6. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 07:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
90. Support No reason to not give tools, exhibits common sense, good answers. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 18:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
91. Support - Because as Tan said, I view Alison's word as gospel. --— Coffee // have a cup // ark // 21:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh good grief, guys, please :p - Alison ^❤ 21:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Well it's my standard way of worship... Every Tuesday between 3pm and 5pm, I sit down and read your words. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 21:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

92. Either Floquenbeam will be an adequate, perhaps even great, admin, in which case all's well, or this really will turn out to be some evil conspiracy by Alison, Majorly, and Pedro, in which case extreme wackiness ensues and all's even better. I suspect that I'll be disappointed here - my first guess will be the right one - but we really can't lose either way. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
93. Strong Support I am really puzzled. We tell folks that privacy is critical. No outing, no personal info released, etc. But someone has a problem, drops their account, and comes back editing very well. But, folks feel someone has to sacrifice themselves again, just in case it is some big plan to screw Wiki. Record since the change is fine, and unless Flo has the most masterful plan we have ever seen, full trust is given. Flo, stand up for what you have done - editing matters to me far more than "OMG - what if?!?!" King Pickle (talk) 00:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
94. Support. If the previous account was abandoned due to legitimate security reasons and confirmed by a CU, then there's nothing against this user. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 01:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
95. support --Rocksanddirt (talk) 02:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
96. Content contributions are not a required skill of admins. Stifle (talk) 11:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
97. Support. I have never had any issues with Floquenbeam, and was in fact always well impressed. With the elephant in the room addressed up-front (existance of a prior account was obvious), I have no concerns. I trust Alison/Pedro/Majorly that no known RfA-relevant controversies of the previous account were omitted, but even if one doesn't one can expect the closing bureaucrat to be aware of any such omissions and to judge consensus appropriately, so Q18 and related questions should not be of concern. Amalthea 13:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
98. Support. Have seen him showing good judgment and doing good work for humane settlement of difficult situations. See no reason not to trust this user, and can't hold the prior account situation against him as per my own precedent. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
99. Support - Looks okay overall, I'd prefer a bit more article work, but I'm not expecting every candidate to be perfect in every way. If content work isn't your thing then it isn't your thing, and to get involved in it just to look better at RfA wouldn't be the right way to go. None of the opposes have me very worried. AlexiusHoratius 16:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
100. Support. I came here through a link on Proofreader77's user page which leads to his post on the talk page about content, with which I wholly agree. Heavy content work can help in understanding what admins must do, but there are other ways this can (and does) happen. I also trust Alison's take on the earlier account and note that bureaucrats will most likely be heard from if there are any missed worries. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
101. Support - My concerns about transparency are largely ameliorated by the various statement from Alison, Pedro, and Majorly. — Kralizec! (talk) 16:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
102. Nathan ^T 18:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
103. Support per Pedro, et al. Alison's word is good enough for me. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
104. Support per the (currently) 103 votes that precede mine. ((om nom nom)) delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 20:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
105. Support per latest note on talk page. This account's contributions meet my requirements and I now know enough about the previous to be confortable. Hobit (talk) 21:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
106. Support: Looks good. Ret.Prof (talk) 22:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
107. Да ···Lauryn 22:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
108. Support - a competent user who I can trust with the tools. Their privacy must be respected and I think it is best to WP:AGF. Good luck, Airplaneman ^talk 03:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
109. Support Oberonfitch (talk) 05:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
110. Support —Terrence and Phillip 10:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
111. Support Can be trusted Polargeo (talk) 12:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
112. Support. Will make a good admin. Hal peridol (talk) 14:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
113. Support gladly; MastCell pretty much sums it up for me. I'll add that I've taken positive notice of the candidate and respect for the nominator helps as well.  Frank  |  talk  15:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose[edit]

1. Oppose per Q6 answer and lack of transparency. Garibaldi Baconfat 18:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Can I ask what you didn't like about the answer? Also, what lack of transparency are you refering to - if it's about Floquenbeam's previous account, I think Alison's comments on the talk page is enough to stop me having any worries about that - if it's not that, could you explain more thoroughly? -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   I didn't like the answer because I don't think anyone's life is worth sacrificing for Wikipedia. I don't trust Alison, she's an Encyclopedia Dramatica Admin, so integrity really isn't high on her agenda. Garibaldi Baconfat 19:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   That comment about Alison is low RMHED - cummon - you know better than to troll like this. Pedro :  Chat  19:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Bugger! I thought I'd occupied the moral highground, well fuck me sideways with a pineapple. Curses to you Pedro, your trolling accusation has revealed my base motives. Garibaldi Baconfat 20:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm a right royal snake in the grass me. How about you and me get back to robbing Waitrose of food, booze and selected other consumer non-durables and leave the crappy RFA opposes to others? Pedro :  Chat  20:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   OK, my hunting ground is Witney's Waitrose, but Dave doesn't approve. Strange really given his Oxford predilections. Garibaldi Baconfat 21:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Trust Bermondsey Dave mate. Anyway, at least this needs archiving to talk and RMHED - can you at least strike the bits refering Alison. Poor form old boy. Pedro :  Chat  21:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Right you are, I've struck my flippant remarks. Garibaldi Baconfat 21:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Would it ease your mind any to know that you're not on the list? yet... :) --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   List!!!! What list? You sneaky bastarde. Garibaldi Baconfat 21:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   I wouldn't worry, RMHED's comedic ability is first rate, but these kind of opposes are not worth debating. Lack of transparency? Yeah. Pedro :  Chat  19:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Should this vote be removed per his recent indef, or not? It's a valid comment as far as I'm concerned even though I disagree with it, but I'm not sure what the policy is for removing votes from a banned user, i.e. should valid votes also be removed? Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  15:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2. Oppose - Per the answer to question 2. This is an encyclopedia. It would be nice to see some article writing. Right now it's quite unspectacular. Also, we really don't need anymore needlessly bureaucratic admins. I mean come on, question 1 is just a cookie cutter laundry list of adminy areas probably the result of some kind of grooming. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 05:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Wisdom, I'll cop to the article writing weakness; "unspectacular" is... kind. That's just not my thing, although I understand the process well enough to not get in the way of people who do it well. An encyclopedia is not only information created by article writers; it's also information presented in an organized way, protected from damage, written by people who sometimes need help with stuff. I try to help out with those last three parts, because that's what I'm better at.

   It would be tacky to try to argue you out of your oppose when things seem to be going well. But I do just want to note that I think you'd be hard pressed to find anything "needlessly bureaucratic" about my activity here, and I wasn't groomed by anyone. The list in Q1 is a list of areas I'm actually already involved in (well, except for WP:ANEW and sort of WP:RFPP), in decreasing order of activity. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   I am striking my above comment that asserted your list was merely a reflection of "RfA grooming". That isn't fair to you. A better way to describe what I meant would be that it's a list that just smacks of someone who planned on running for adminship (contrived maybe?), and while this isn't necessarily a bad thing, I can't vet you properly given that your past account is out of sight. Your privacy is your own and I would never challenge that, but what I see here is claims of experience that isn't proportion to the activity on this account. Cheers. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 16:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3. Oppose The lack of content creation gives me pause, but utilizing AfD as a weapon in inexcusable. No reason to trust this user with the delete button. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 15:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Could you expand on the "utilizing AfD as a weapon" statement? Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 16:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   In the answer to question 5 above, Floquenbeam admits to intentionally nominating an article about an "obviously notable" subject for deletion. Certainly not the way to handle an editing dispute, BLP or not. It shows a lack of judgement. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 17:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Whilst your entitled to your opinion, would you not agree that this is overly harsh? You are using the question regarding something he regrets to oppose him on. If he regrets doing it, and has learnt his lesson and is unlikely to do it again, what else do you want from him? We all have skeletons in the closet. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  18:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Yup. This is low. Aditya Ex Machina 05:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Wow. We have a user who apparently goes back several years, and event that was only 7 months ago. We have just had a few admins showing clear disdain for the community, consensus, and our deletion policy by closing AfDs as "Default to delete" even after the matter was clearly settled. I am not yet convinced that Flo can be trusted with the block and delete buttons given this willingness to toss policy out the window to make a point, whether or not the action is regretted. And now that there has not been a "no" answer to question 18, I don't know that my mind will be changed. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 14:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

4. The candidate has a lack of audited content contributions, and their non-content building work does not sway me to support. (more info) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. Strong Oppose Not qualified in my opinion. Needs more edits, and more content work.  IShadowed  ✰  21:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. Oppose The total edit count "3500" looks still pretty low to become admin in my opinion given that your edits are mostly "vandal-fighting" with convenient tools. Your lack of article building casts me doubts on how well you're knowledgeable of Wikipedia core content policies and experience with them yourself. Even though you "honestly" say you are a reincarnated editor, we don't see any "actual proof" to verify how much you contributed to Wikipedia with the old account except Alison's brief and general analysis. Moreover, the following thought of mine is not just limited to your case, but I'm not convinced that retired editors for their privacy concern come back with a new account want to get admin bits even though the admin position has a "riskier environment" regarding "privacy" since they are exposed to many and all sort of people. Your general contribution is good, but I can not support you at this time for the said reasons.--Caspian blue 03:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm not trying to counter your oppose (it's a perfectly valid reason to oppose, I think I just set my bar a bit lower than you) but I'm curious what kind of edit count the previous account had. I assumed it was somewhat substantial, since Alison had said it had a "history going back some years" that included "plenty of janitorial work". I'd expect at least a couple of thousand more edits, and if it was "wikignomish" then much of it should have been to the article space (gnomes don't participate in a lot of discussion). This is of course speculation on my part unless she confirms this. -- Atama頭 18:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   I am able to confirm the candidate made a substantial amount of edits under their previous name, with many to articles. I'd rather not go further into detail for the candidate's sake, but they certainly had a healthy balance of edits. Majorly talk 22:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   It's an awfully slippery slope I've set up for everyone, I know. Going forward, what I really, really hope to do is say nothing at all about my previous account. I'm asking for adminship with all but four people unable to see my old edits. I'm worried that it doesn't look fair to give them hints that if they knew about those edits, they'd be more likely to support. I saw what happened to User:A new name 2008 during their RFA, when they rather innocently let slip that they had 10,000 previous edits. I'd prefer that not happen here. I'm not trying to "take credit" for any editing I've done before. I asked Alison for her review only to confirm I didn't have anything bad to hide, but I'm not looking for anyone to say anything good about my past life. I'm quite content to have people oppose based on "too few edits" under the new account name. Caspian Blue, if you would oppose a non-returning editor with 3500 edits similar to mine, that's fine with me. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Until the candidate discloses his/her prior account, I can only evaluate the "current contribution" which can't be a subject of complaint. Since he assessment of the nominators (Alison also taking the almost "nominator" position) could not be same as others', the claim that there is no "bad" history could be subjective. For example, Neurolysis (talk · contribs) had a "good standing" previous account, Asenine (talk · contribs), but you see some people did not share the same impression with the nominator's on his latest RFA. Moreover, I just don't understand the eagerness to get the mop since the people left for "privacy concern" are willing to expose themselves to the environment susceptible to be challenged for their privacy.--Caspian blue 01:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   I must add that one of the nominators' "fringe view"[5][6] on socking/reincarnated accounts, so I stand by my view adamantly.Caspian blue 02:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

7. Oppose - Not enough experience. I don't have confidence that they are familiar enough with Wikipedia to hold the mop. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
8. Reluctant Oppose It isn't given to everyone to be a writer, but it isn't given to everyone to be an admin, either, and I continue to believe that all admins should have more content work than this, so they really understand the passions that go on in a content argument. Second, that is a low number of edits given vandal fighting work. Not yet.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
9. Oppose changing my mind on this one. The lack of an answer to question 18 bothers me, as does the answer to question five. Also the lack of answers to the questions on the talk page (especially whether this user's prior account and this account's editing overlapped) persuaded me to change my mind. ~DC _{Talk To Me} 20:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Um, the questions on the talk were placed at 16:12 on the 15th January and Flo has not edited since 14:52. So whatever else may concern you please at least give the candidate time to reply. To oppose based on non answers when the candidate is off-line is exceptionally wrong headed. Pedro :  Chat  21:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   That wasn't the only reason (I was more concerned about the first two reasons I gave). But if he does answer, I'll reconsider. ~DC _{Talk To Me} 21:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Oppose for now at least. While I understand the privacy issues (I truly do), I think a few other factoids about the account are needed. The overlapping of accounts and the like. I understand one BC has been informed of the previous account, and if they basically confirm what Allison says and add a "no significant controversy associated with this account" including misuse of multiple accounts then I'll be happy to support. If that's already happened, I'd appreciate a pointer. Hobit (talk) 21:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   A pointer. "I had a previous account" (Q4). Previous, at least in my version of English, means "before" - not NOW and not AT THE SAME TIME. Another pointer. Read the talk page. The candidate has been off-line since the talk page comment by Caspian (who I have already noted has previously opposed yet still continues to stir the pot). Does that help ?Pedro :  Chat  21:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Pedro, your disparagement campaign is splendid as well as your typical hysterical reaction.--Caspian blue 13:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   I don't think that's an obvious inference, but are you saying there was absolutely no overlap? Hobit (talk) 01:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   I have replied to Caspian Blue on the talk page. From my understanding, Alison has told a 'crat, who will do (or has done, I don't know) an independent review. I don't believe the plan is for the 'crat to publicly state anything; I believe the plan is that they will tell the crat mailing list if they think there is any concern that is not being discussed. If more information about the previous account is needed to prevent an oppose, I'll accept the oppose with no hard feelings. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   No problem. As I've mentioned on Pedro's page, I feel that if we are going to pass a nom such as this, it should be done where those responsible for AfD RfA, the bureaucrats, confirm the various claims. I very much suspect you are going to pass this AfD, but I really don't think this is a good precedent as it stands. Hobit (talk) 01:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Striking per comments on the talk page. I'm not certain I want to support, but by-and-large my issues have been addressed. I'd still like to hear if there was any issue with the two accounts violating any polices about such things, but I'm not seeing a reason to oppose at the moment. Hobit (talk) 01:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

10. Oppose this time around. I feel editor needs more experience in article creation and the criteria for nominating articles for deletion. And while his fighting vandals is great work, such does not require the tools. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
11. Oppose. Being told that someone’s previous identity is okay so let’s just merge it with this one may be acceptable to some, but I’ll disregard it. So it is a straightforward decision based on the available evidence. More experience needed. (no criticism of those involved is intended, I just don’t go along with the approach adopted). Leaky Caldron 01:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
12. You have been someone that I respected, but unfortunately, there's no way of knowing because you're unwilling to disclose your previous account name. As far as I'm concerned, you have two routes to choose when thinking about editing under a new username (and not being willing to divulge the previous account name) after previously editing under an old one; 1) Right to vanish - this means that you move completely away from the project and don't edit again. 2) You start a new username, but don't apply for any role which requires additional trust. I'm sorry, but if you're unwilling to divulge any information, and expect us to trust what 1/2/3 people (and they're all users who have my ultimate respect as it happens) say then I'm unwilling to support this request. Sorry Floquenbeam. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I was dumb enough to work as an admin under my real name. It's too late for me to change that but as a result, I'm now staying clear of any sensitive admin work and I do most of my editing on an alternate account. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 18:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, that's only one way, Ryan. To be absolutely clear, unlike many in the oppose section, you aren't saying I'm being too close to the vest with my old account info, and you aren't saying that the experience as Floquenbeam isn't enough (both of which I disagree with, but am quite willing to accept as good faith reasons). You're saying that if anyone ever has their privacy endangered due to their choice of user name, that's it for them; no adminship on Wikipedia, ever. If that's not what you're saying, please re-word, because that's what you're saying. If it is what you're saying, I very strongly disagree. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

13. Oppose Not enough experience. If the candidate is not willing to have their record examined, they should have a longer record for us to see. Now they have 3,500 edits. Not enough. If we allow vouching by a few respected people, then we are allowing the important people to appoint administrators. That's ok that the Ambassador to Switzerland or a cabinet minister is appointed, but that's not the way it's done in Wikipedia. Come back in a few months when the Floquenbeam editing record is more established. JB50000 (talk) 06:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
14. Oppose. Lack of experience. I'm aware of Alison's analysis of the previous account, but "largely wikignomish" previous activity doesn't say much to me. Pcap ping 09:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
15. Weak Oppose - No worries about the prior account, but this account should have more of a history. In particular the very first answer worries me: "CAT:CSD. I don't do much new page patrolling"... the user's edit history suggests no new page patrolling. Shadowjams (talk) 09:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
16. Oppose per Wehwalt, and JB50000. Come back when *this* account has enough of a demonstrated record to justify adminship. I do not go as far as Ryan, and your privacy is your own, but you can't have your cake (prior good behavior) and eat it too (not show that record). Ray^Talk 16:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Indeed, Floquenbeam's privacy is his/her own, but we have right to vanish for that whereby if Floquenbeam decided that the privacy issue became too much of a concern then they could have taken that route. However, to quote from the right to vanish guideline; "The right to vanish is only available to users who are also exercising their right to leave. The "right to vanish" is not a "right to a fresh start" under a new identity. Vanishing means that the individual is vanishing, not just the account. Vanished users have no right to silently return under a new identity." Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 20:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see that anyone is claiming the right to vanish in this case. Am I missing it? MastCell ^Talk 20:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    They aren't per se, but what they did had the same effect. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 20:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Not really, since he never claimed to have "silently returned under a new identity". He's been open about the existence of a prior account, and three people are aware of that account and it's usage. Also, a bureaucrat will review the prior account due to Alison's passing on of information to them. I can't see how this prior account thing is causing so much trouble given that assurance has been given of no past discretions. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  23:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

17. Oppose I can't support candidates who don't use real names GTD 22:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Your name is Dragon? Shadowjams (talk) 22:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    You beat me to the pun... maybe he's Saint George? Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  23:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I have no problem with users using fake names, at this stage at least.To be blunt, I believe every Wikipedia editor should declare their full identity on the user page and all editors under-18 should be banned. But as long as that isn't the case, I'll play the system GTD 23:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This is uncomfortably close to a Dougstech-style oppose. I take it you recently made it your personal mission to oppose all RfAs until this "system" is changed? Make RfA your battlefield for fighting this? Tan | 39 00:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Not particularly. Though believing admins should be above the age of 18 and identifiable seems fair, even if I expect a good few to disagree. GTD 01:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    You're asking quite a lot coming from someone who doesn't list shit about themselves on their userpage. --— Coffee // have a cup // ark // 09:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, we can assume that GTD won't be going for an RfA, as this would be the oppose many people would use on that, referring to this !vote -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    No, let's be accurate. That would only cause half of the oppose votes. The other half would be about my views on minors as contributors! GTD 00:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Nah the other half would be on the fact that you could be a minor. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 02:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

18. Oppose User is too anxious to become an administrator. This is a bad sign. The user wants to be an administrator even though he or she hasn't had enough edits. Edit-countitis is bad but a minimum number is required per Wikipedia custom. The user probably had enough by the old name but the old name is not running for administrator, this one is. Reapplication recommended for later this year. Predict success at that time. Goldamania (talk) 00:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    FWIW, Maedin. I don't have a problem with you personally having that opinion, that's fine - just wanted to point out a recent example where an edit count of ~3,300 went unopposed. Regards, JamieS93 00:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

19. Oppose you need to start writing articles to experience certain things about the site.--Otterathome (talk) 02:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
20. Oppose per relative paucity of article work, combined with the "I had an account before but won't tell you anything about it" schtick, overall relatively low level of contributions. If you want to come back in a few months of good editing (e.g., go get something from a stub to GA) and declare your previous username, I'll likely support in the future. Jclemens (talk) 05:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
21. Oppose - concerned about lack of article work. Pantherskin (talk) 11:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
22. Oppose Q18. Prodego ^talk 18:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
23. Oppose per relative paucity of article work, prior account is no concern. Power.corrupts (talk) 22:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
24. Oppose Transparency is essential and there seems to be a little less than usually here. I do have concerns about the prior account. Sometimes one needs to put there neck out especially when an admin. For me to overlook this would need a longer editing history.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
25. Oppose Lack of article writing, and experience in admin related areas is quite weak. Epbr123 (talk) 09:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
26. Oppose I simply do not see the point of this candidacy - too many questions...Modernist (talk) 14:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Could you expound, please? Without context, this looks like an unsubstantial oppose. Have you reviewed the candidate's contribs and answers, etc.? JamieS93 15:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    IMO there is a contradiction between the desire to be an administrator and a lack of both transparency and article work on the one hand and claims to the contrary via prior account and privacy concerns. It seems to me if you have privacy concerns for whatever reason then it seems best to stay low profile, and edit without attracting undue attention and/or responsibilities. See Pascal.Tesson's comments above as well. Article work alone or rather lack of it raises doubts let alone the rest of the story.Although I do like the work that I've seen Floquenbeam do...Modernist (talk) 17:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Good points - thanks for sharing them. :) JamieS93 17:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    For what it's worth, I don't believe there's necessarily such a contradiction. Most admin areas are really boring low-profile areas; if you don't dive into ANI, the drama of the day, or are running or ArbCom, nobody will really care about you enough to try and out you. I myself have been conscious about leaving only a limited amount of clues about my real life, and since I hardly make appearances in areas that are of interest to Wikipedia Review clientèle, nobody will even care enough to try and out me. It's of course highly debatable how useful I am for this project since I don't write articles either, but I like to think that I'm still a net positive; Similarly, the candidate can, if he wants, keep to areas of limited exposure, be useful there, without increasing his risk of outing—as long as he sticks to his resolve not to leave too many breadcrumbs in this RfA, not matter how it goes. Amalthea 18:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

27. Oppose per Jim Miller and the whole secrecy issue. BLGM5 (talk) 22:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral[edit]

1. Neutral. I must say that your contributions have been outstanding thus far, but I'm afraid I cannot, in good conscious, support per the lack of transparency. Sorry, FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Despite the fact that he has been completely up front about the whole thing apart from the name, which has been verified by a trusted admin, the fact that he apparently has very good reason to have left the account, and the fact he could have not mentioned it at all and it would probably not have come up?--Jac16888^Talk 03:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   The candidate's reticence about his previous account is down to genuine concerns for his privacy. It's not an indicator of some sort of 'shenanigans' or sordid past. There's really not much to know - Alison ^❤ 05:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   I really feel this is not a reason to !vote neutral. Privacy must be zealously protected and respected. Alison has confirmed this user's previous account was not used maliciously and not subject to anything bad. We should judge based on the most recent actions, not things in ancient history. Basket of Puppies 20:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Oh, I don't know, pretty much anything is a good reason to be neutral. I don't know how I could be more transparent than I was, Fastily, but I've no problems with this, and thanks for the comments about my contributions. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   @Basket of Puppies. Completely irrelevant. What you say does not and will not change my !vote. Thanks for understanding Floquenbeam. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   I guess I don't understand why privacy shouldn't be respected. Sorry. Basket of Puppies 04:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   I don't think you understand that this is the neutral section, and votes here do not affect the overall tally. Aditya Ex Machina 05:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   I understand it perfectly, thank you. It's the rationale I disagree with. Thank you. Basket of Puppies 05:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Well of course you disagree with it, else you wouldn't support. Nevertheless, you might want to re-read what Floquenbeam says above. I've fixed the indentation, btw. Feel free to change if it makes you feel uncomfortable. Aditya Ex Machina 05:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2. Neutral per question 5 and bits of pieces of other questions. They might be isolated incidents and this RFA is going to pass anyway, so I don't think an oppose is my opinion here, but my concerns prevent support. Doc Quintana (talk) 21:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   NeutralMoved to oppose leaning support - Neutral because of the low edit count, supporting largely because of Majorly's explanation and because the oppose reasons are quite unconvincing. Shadowjams (talk) 09:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Shadowjams, you've voted twice; I'm going to assume your newer vote is the one you want and indent this one. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 13:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Sorry about that. I forgot to strike out the old one. Shadowjams (talk) 22:04, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3. Neutral leaning support. Excellent work with this account, but low content creation makes me waffle. Liqudluck✽talk 16:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Neutral - Candidate does good work in vandalism-fighting and other gnomish work, and has provided sensible answers to questions. I would be happier with the candidate if he had some more experience in content creation. I come to this view largely because of my one "run-in" with the candidate, which was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canbourne University (2nd nomination), an AfD started by Floquenbeam that I personally found annoying. At the time, I feared that Floqenbeam was going to turn out to be a smug holier-than-thou deletionist who has little empathy for the challenges faced by contributors who build and maintain articles. I am pleased to discover that I was wrong -- it seems this is one of just a couple of AfDs he ever initiated and one of only a very few that he ever participated in. Furthermore, he says he's not interested in doing XfDs. I think, however, that it is beneficial for administrators to have some experience in content creation -- in order to have some empathy for the concerns of contributors who research topics and write prose, and it appears to me that Floquenbeam lacks that kind of experience. The experience that his nominator describes as "content creation" is more along the lines of "article cleanup." I expect that this RfA will be succcessful, and I am voting "neutral" because I want the candidate to think seriously about the need for him to try doing some actual content creation in order to get that experience. --Orlady (talk) 03:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. Conditional Neutral...I trust Alison & Majorly, but would like perhaps one more endorsement of someone who knows of the old account (did I miss one while reading this?), as that would (IMO) make sure that possible minority/alternate viewpoints on the old account would have been expressed. After that, I would be happy to support. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 20:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   I believe a bureaucrat has just examined the old account and confirmed Alison's assessment at the talk page for this RfA. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.