Wikipedia:Administrator review/Floquenbeam

Floquenbeam (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)[edit]

FEEDBACK GIVEN,

... election won NE Ent 03:14, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I'm somewhat dissatisfied with my admining lately; both making blocks that I think I could have handled more elegantly, and extending chances to people in lieu of blocks that look, in retrospect, like I was just facilitating further disruption. With a few exceptions, no significant criticism from uninvolved observers yet, but something just seems out of phase: too much leniency when a stick is called for, and too much stick when leniency is called for. Also noting that I'm disagreeing (mostly in silence) with a lot of blocks I see made, that don't seem to bother anyone else. I've never done one of these since I got the bit 3 1/2 years ago, so thought I'd give it a try and solicit constructive feedback. Is this something others have noticed too? Particularly people with a broader perspective than just "he blocked me and I don't like it", although people I've blocked are more than welcome here.

Note: This is a discussion, not target practice. If you comment, I'm likely to politely respond/ask questions. It's not intended to be "badgering" (stupid concept), it's discussing. I'll be polite. And if all you want to do is tell me I'm an asshole, I'm unlikely to respond, but also unlikely to listen to you.

Other than that, no rules, the floor is open. Floquenbeam (talk) 15:34, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I tell you that you are the first one coming to my mind when I need someone to listen. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:55, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gerda. But I'm not asking if I'm a wonderful person (of course I am). I'm asking about my admining. Still, I never look a gift compliment in the mouth, so thanks! --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:00, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Listening is a rare attitude that I want in an admin (or arbitrator). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:40, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Never seen you put a serious foot wrong, always agreed with your actions, that I've seen, often even admired them. Maybe it's not you that's "out of phase"...
Gerda makes a good point, too - you're open to discussion, and thoughtful.
A couple of times, particularly one recent occasion, I've seen you take moral stands that needed taking, when the "establishment" or "cliques" or those with "official" positions might not approve, and showed signs of "circling wagons" - in which you risked backlash for speaking your mind and taking a correct position. We need more of that, not less. No details of the occasions, sorry, don't want to personalise it.
That's my opinion, though, and you know what opinions are worth... . Begoon ^talk 16:16, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Begoon, opinions are worth a great deal. Thanks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:00, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have only had a few brief interactions with you and at least one wasn't exactly pleasant. Half of that is my fault I made the situation worse by accusing you of socking, however I do think that your level or stress doing admining is also a little apparent in how you talk to people...ie fuck off, fuck you things like that..If you can cool your jets the way you talk to people I think you'll do fine but I also think that the break you took this summer may have really been needed. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:58, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Though moderation in language is never a bad idea, it is also important to note that using the word "fuck" doesn't always indicate that there's a need to cool one's jets; some people (e.g. myself, though I try to avoid it on Wikipedia) use that word as just another word, not as an indication of stress. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 06:34, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm now pretty good at letting criticism of my actions or intelligence roll off my back, but I still need to work on reacting calmly when my honesty is questioned. Yes, I needed that break. Thanks for the feedback. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:21, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You'se good people. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 06:34, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, WK, thanks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:21, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First off, Floq, I think almost any admin who is willing to listen to community feedback voluntarily is one who probably should have the toolset, and you are no exception. I did want to echo HIAB above, and note that at times, I think you are perceived as being somewhat gruff, and having an inclination to bite at times. Over the last several months, I have seen a few examples of this and while I know that is probably not your intention, it's what others likely perceive. All in all, we need more admin with your resilience, willingness to stand up for what you believe, and willingness to make the tough, yet correct, decision. Go Phightins! 10:39, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, sometimes I seem grumpy because I am grumpy. I'll try to dial back the snark ~~a notch~~ half a notch. Thanks for the feedback. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:21, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What Begoon said. 28bytes (talk) 12:50, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What I said to Begoon. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:21, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh - ok, first this is not a "return" - but this is one of a couple things I need to address. Floq, I'm sure it wouldn't take me long to find something that I disagreed with you about; BUT - even when I was active, I knew that if I saw you working an issue that I could simply move on. You do your research, as said above - you listen, and most importantly you treat editors like people. (something all too often missing around this @%^(^*%()& website). Sure, I've seen you get frustrated - any sane person would HAVE to feel that way at times. The site deals with the mentally challenged, the socially inept, capricious ne'er-do-wells, POV pushing single purpose accounts, and an abundance of pugnacious, narcissistic and petulant children. I place you in a category of editors and admins that I can count without taking off my socks: NYB, Carch, Worm, Drmies, Heim, Bish, 28 - and perhaps one or two more. One gift you have is that you are very self-aware. You know when to walk away. Personally, I find it refreshing and honest when someone calls an ass, an ass. Sure, you need to be aware of the audience - but a "fuck you" on a user's talk page is far different than something said on a drama board or article talk. Are you at times bold? Damn straight. Blocking an arb doesn't come easy - but there's times it needs to be done. But most importantly is that you are compassionate (and I'm happy to say that I've experienced that first-hand). Just trust your heart, and believe your instincts. You're one of the best the site has ever had - and if you didn't make a mistake once in a while? ... then you're not trying very hard. — ChedZILLA 19:45, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ched, hope you're well, and enjoying the time away as much as I did this summer. You're too kind. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:21, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You and have disagreed in the past, but mostly all I have is praise. I respect your instincts, your analyses, and your intelligence (I'm a sucker for smart). Given your opening statement, I suspect you have the ability on your own to fix whatever you think is wrong. As Ched said, you're self-aware. If I had one piece of constructive criticism to offer, it would be not to interfere too much with other admin's actions unless they are clearly out of process. As you know, we have a lot of discretion and we are hardly fungible. Therefore, what one admin might do, another might not. We shouldn't try to get other admins to use their tools precisely the way we would. We should cut them some slack. That doesn't mean we should always support each other (all the criers of admin abuse will come raining down on me), but we should respect each other. It's kind of the administrative equivalent of good faith. On a more positive note, if Ched and 28 think you're doing well - and I know there are others who would agree - then you are. One last thing. It's very brave of you to initiate this review. I don't think I could, but I'm probably more thin-skinned than you.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Bbb23. While I'm not sure I want to promise not to "interfere", I'll make a stronger effort to ensure I do so politely. My time here is limited enough these days that I usually (not always) only interfere when I do think it's important. If only you knew how many comments about things I disagree with I start to type, only to decide to hit <cancel> instead of <save page> because I decide it isn't worth the stress and bad feelings to argue over a difference in degree of action. Thanks for commenting. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:34, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's fallacious thinking that the quality of a given wiki decision can be based on the outcome of the decision. People are unpredictable, wikipedia is non-deterministic and agf is a code of conduct, not a probability estimate. I've also come to the believe that much "disruption" occurs not because of suboptimal edits by the less than clueful, but overreaction by the overwound (see wikidryl). I haven't been wikistalking enough recently to comment on recent actions -- I'm actually here because I was double-checking that you're active as a admin in context of this edit on WP:AE [1], which is a good illustration of why I consider you one of the better admins: while most active admins are hard working and acting in good faith, many, unfortunately, appear to function on a basis of rules. The better ones, including, but not limited to the ones @Chedzilla: listed (and him) and yourself, seem to attempt to apply the rules in the greater context of the five pillars and not bureaucracy and, most importantly, keeping in mind that connected to that account is real person, inherently deserving of respect, even if they're not really a good fit for Wikipedia editing.

Concur with above discussion re snark and "fuck off" -- understandable that you might get to that point, but best approach is to disengage.

I find it extremely frustrating that admins I know would never take the poor actions others do remain silent. In wikicontext, the analog of Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing. John Stuart Mill might be "Misguided admins harm Wikipedia when good admins look on and do nothing." It wouldn't be fair to claim there's an admin code of silence but it appears there is somewhat of a tendency towards that. The better admins speak up when decisions and sketchy and overturn when they're just horribly wrong. So please continue to do that. Because time and wiki capital is limited, we all have to pick our battles, so even though folks are commenting on a block doesn't necessarily mean they approve. NE Ent 14:23, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks NEE. That's what I'm generally trying to do, not sure I've been as successful recently. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:34, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently I judged this admin positively a bit too soon. Floquen has a tendency to show biases for his fellow admins where they are wrong. Many of your behaviors are a alienatory as well. AmericanDad86 (talk) 22:07, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your feedback. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:36, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your discomforts are more the result of "them" being screwed up than of you. You should reflect on your beliefs and feel good about the things about you that make you uncomfortable with the Communitai. That's not to say I agree with you on every last Wikikerfuffle. But you are kind and brave to stand up when someone is being picked on. And good perspective to realize how bafflingly bizarre this whole world of teenage admins terbaninating people would be to the average middle-aged newbie contributor. (And note, the place is dying...shrinking).

The good said, your "area for improvement" is to write articles. And not for street cred, but because that should be the focus of the place. Instead, it just revolves around moderation and version control struggle. Even in your role of honest/kind person, you are endorsing an arena that is in and of itself screwed up. You're obviously smart and not a dork. So there should be something interesting to write about. (Or make graphics or code or the like...but not ANI/ARB. They really are lesser beings. Not just when they say it in a self-deprecating way.) Oh...and don't get too sad about the "good" admins or arbs quitting. It shouldn't be an important item.

71.127.137.171 (talk) 00:22, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't have that much time for Wikipedia anymore (senior in engineering here), but I'll pretty much just echo what 71.127.137.171 said. The "insta-block/sanction" mentality of the ANI crowd really messes this place up a lot, along with the "power"-hungry admin wannabes and admins. (I put "power" in quotes because it's not like being an admin on this website gives you any credibility in the real world.) You're one of the best editors here, and thank you. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:22, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Floquenbeam is a rare sort of administrator, in that he is deeply empathetic for others and exercises leniency and measure while carrying out his duties. Such conduct, while I do not always agree with the outcome, nevertheless earns my admiration. I have actually found that this approach can diffuse the worst of situations. While this sometimes comes to a fault and some editors who do not deserve second chances receive them, his unique and kind-hearted approach is nothing short of admirable. I hope you continue to be an administrator here! DarthBotto_talk•cont 22:25, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to repeat here what I wrote on Floquenbeam's talk page, which is that I very much appreciated his recent intervention in a dispute I was involved in on WP:AN/I. His comment there served to cool things down, and was balanced and non-aggresive. This is, I think, in the tradition of the best Wikipedia admins, and I compliment him on it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:12, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to give an old-fashioned thanks for this edit,[2] which is apt and on the good side of the humor / sarcasm divide. It is funny and disarming, and gets the point across without pointing fingers: this discussion is over, we're moving along, and sniping on AN/I makes things dysfunctional. In the context of an admin review, I'll just note that humor can be a little dangerous because if it falls on the wrong side and looks sarcastic or condescending, any person on the receiving end of a negative administrative decision, resolution, warning, etc., might get upset at the combination of authority + disrespect, and it could escalate rathr than calm things. Not here, but that's a complaint about admins. You really need the patience and thick skin of Mother Teresa to be a good admin. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:03, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My first impression of you was not very good. Since we have never crossed paths otherwise, it is still the only impression I have. Though you didn't use your admin tools at the time, I am not one of those fools here that believe in the separation of the editor and the admin. If a user is a dick as an editor, then he's bound to be a dick as an admin. Not that I'm calling you a dick, of course, because that would be wrong. I just hope that should you and I cross paths again in the future, (as an admin or editor), that you leave a better impression... - thewolfchild 05:23, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am really dissatisfied with this action you took. I realise I am involved in the case, and wasn't going to take it further, but since you are asking for feedback, I will give it. Closing a discussion because it's "boring" (to you) doesn't strike me as a valid explanation. In some sense, every discussion about editor behavior is tedious, but sometimes it needs to occur. The way I see it, cutting short these discussions just increase the occurrence of poor behavior, and make wikipedia a more toxic place to interact. I appreciated what you said about the current block having taken the wind out of everyone's sails - and maybe the discussion did need to be closed - but "boring" is a terrible rationale. From my own perspective, I don't often post things at ANI, and it's going to take a lot for me to do it again. And maybe we don't want to encourage editors posting about other editors' poor behavior. But the way you shut down that discussion doesn't help the project. St Anselm (talk) 01:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confident (in my opinion) that it was a good idea to close the thread. But it was also probably a good example of what Wikidemon was trying to tell me a few paragraphs above: I should choose when to employ levity more carefully. I obviously didn't close it because I actually thought it was too boring, I closed it because all such discussions on ANI become dysfunctional (i.e. too *not* boring to be useful) after a couple of hours, and I was trying to head that off. Wikidemon's point is taken, and although I'm not sure you think I'm taking your point, I do appreciate the feedback. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At least you speak your mind. That's bound to piss some people off, especially when they don't agree with you, but I'd rather see that than a bunch of sanctimonious caterwauling and pious hand-wringing over minor issues combined with stoney silence in the face of major misconduct or bad behavior by one of the privileged caste. It makes no difference if I agree with you or not...at least I know where you stand. Intothat darkness 15:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have always struck me as a solid admin, willing to listen and are fair across the board. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:47, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Floquenbeam, I've held you in high regard as an admin for a long time, and I see no reason to change my position now. But if you're feeling dissatisfied, why not hand in the bit temporarily, have a month or three off, and then come back refreshed? I did that earlier this year and it made a big difference, and I'd planned to do the same every year. (OK, that plan was overtaken by other things leading me to retire from admin for good, but that's something else - I'm not recommending you follow me that far!) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 04:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Definitely something to be said for bit breaks -- not that I'm recommending it in this case, just commenting. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:37, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am reading this, but haven't acknowledged anything in a while I know. I'll circle back at some point when I can put some thought into it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Floq is one of a very small pool of admins who are willing to look at underlying issues and do what is best for the encyclopedia so there should be no talk of handing in the bit, even if for a limited period. Naturally there will be people disatisfied with someone who does not think that issues should be resolved by counting the number of bad words uttered by each participant, but there are plenty of us who are grateful for the few admins such as Floq who generally act for a better encyclopedia. The recent action that caused me to notice this review was the closing of an issue at ANI (diff1, diff2). Johnuniq (talk) 00:50, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Floquenbeam, you're very fair, you care about the underdog in a fight, you don't make rash decisions, and you come across as a good person who cares about the project. You seem to understand that editors aren't always wrong and admins aren't always right. That says a lot about you. I'd buy stock in you any day. Malke 2010 (talk) 22:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few things questionable about this editor. For one, he hats discussions too quickly p b p 16:06, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Floquenbeam, my experience with you has been limited--we only crossed paths earlier today at AN/I. However, I applaud that you made a much-appreciated effort to be fair and neutral and concerned with determining facts and separating them from the rhetoric and argument.--ColonelHenry (talk) 04:17, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Personal attacks are bad. Andrevan@ 02:54, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Except when you make them by a bad turn of the phrase? Someone not using his real name (talk) 07:34, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since I'm here, I do have to say that you did manage to exceed my expectation of overdramatic-hyperbolism in language for ArbCom candidates, though probably not for adims... Someone not using his real name (talk) 07:34, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unless there is a purpose I cannot divine, I feel that this is the point to close this page; if the Arb election has not resolved any issues over your adminning, then you should never have stood. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:35, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sorry, it took a while to realize this had been closed. I promised responses above, but that seems kind of moot now, as time has marched on. I think I'll bail on replying to people's comments if that's OK.

But I did want to say thank you to everyone who took time to comment here. I very much appreciate it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]