Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Firefangledfeathers

Homeostasis07's oppose

1. Oppose: I've had exactly one interaction with Firefangledfeathers that I can remember: here. In that discussion, Firefangledfeathers disregarded a multitude of diff'ed examples of another user's tendentious editing, deleting a potential suicide note, WP:SUPERVOTING at AfD and RfC closures, and gross "fuck-face" insults. Telling me instead to "drop it". The discussion was eventually closed with that reported user receiving a warning for "incivility and edit-warring". Firefangledfeathers obviously doesn't have the prerequisite judgement to be an admin. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:22, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

   The discussion was also closed with a "reminder" (not a warning except it quacks like one) that there are many options for dispute resolution short of AN/I which is one way of saying that the ANI complaint was unnecessary. Your specific contribution (to permanently siteban the other user) was also described as a very premature ban proposal by said closing admin, and two other editors proposed WP:BOOMERANGing you on the basis of you casting WP:ASPERSIONS. The nominee telling you to "drop it" may have been a tad blunt, but it seems to be in line with what other editors at the discussion were feeling and certainly wasn't against policy. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:18, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

   @Homeostasis07: The discussion you linked above was closed with a paragraph stating FormalDude, you are warned for incivility and edit-warring, particularly the incidents that occurred on a highly politically sensitive BLP where you were acting contrary to WP:ONUS (see Jayron's comments). Please remember that editors in tense situations should strive to defuse tensions, not amplify them. The "fuck-face" comment was particularly troubling and I would likely have blocked for it if it were more recent. I believe you confused these two editors, considering you stated that FormalDude (within that linked discussion) was the perpetrator of almost all of the actions you mention here. The only part that Firefangledfeather's actually did was tell you to drop it. He didn't ignore differences but rather thought it wasn't worthy of sanctioning and it appears several others felt the same way. Noah^Talk 02:21, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

   I've not confused the two. FormalDude is the one who perpetrated the acts which I believed at the time warranted a siteban (including their blanking a potential suicide note, supervoting at AfD and RfC, extensive edit-warring and tendentious editing, incivility and "fuck-face" insults). Firefangledfeathers told me to "drop it", meaning the entire complaint. If Firefangledfeathers tells a user to "drop it" when highlighting that sort of gross incivility and disruptive editing, then no... I do not believe they are worthy of the mop. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:32, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

   I reread your comment and see I misread part of it... what I get for having been up for 20 hours. Considering several other people there disagreed with you, with some calling for you to be boomeranged says you should drop the stick and just walk away. This oppose seems like you are trying to get back at Firefangledfeathers since the discussion did not go in the manner you had hoped for. Noah^Talk 02:40, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

   I encourage you to retract that aspersion. This is my experience with this nomination; I felt other users should be aware. There is enough bullying and haranguing of editors on these nomination pages. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:46, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

   I dislike the badgering that is typical of this venue, but you may want to consider any other perspective aside your own. You are raising a single eight months old comment where the nominee suggested you drop the stick – in a dispute where two other editors had already proposed boomerang sanctions against you, a third editor dismissed your concerns as 'weak sauce nonsense', a fourth opposed your proposed sanctions, and only one editor supported any sort of sanction which they reduced to a warning after context was provided – as your sole concern. The fact you can recall immediately that singular inconsequential interaction is astounding. That it's being addressed as grudge-holding is unsurprising. I'm indifferent as to your oppose, but it's a dog-pile attractant. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:21, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

   @Hurricane Noah for what it's worth, I read that same comment after having been awake for about three hours and infused with coffee, and came away with the same interpretation. It's the wording, not you. ~TPW 13:27, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

   Yes, I read it in exactly the same way until I saw Homeostasis' clarification. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:49, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

   @Homeostasis07: Mr. Feathers had nothing to do with your or my ANI against another editor. There's no reason to oppose adminship if someone in good-faith, did not find our cause convincing enough. — hako9 (talk) 05:43, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

FAs characterized as "little content creation"?

Lightburst, I'm not sure if you wanted to include the latter in that same sentence with the GAs, but unless I'm plenty mistaken (it does happen), I thought FAs were the pinnacle of editor content creation? Does it not require an exhaustive understanding of Wikipedia's core content policies and significant time investment? X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 22:39, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

@X750: Hi, thanks for the message. Having an FA is impressive. I was commenting on their started articles - 9 of which 4 have been deleted in fourteen years of editing. I have also been troubled by what I see as Wikipedia's liberal bias and I think that is where I have issues with this candidate. And then there is the issue of the candidate defending his buddy Formal Dude even when the Formal dude was dead wrong. The other editor is a content creator and they were dismissed by the candidate. It is a lifetime appointment and we should be careful. FWIW I have been known to change my ivotes at RFA if I think I have been too harsh so I appreciate the message. Lightburst (talk) 22:51, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

No worries, was just curious as to the reasoning behind it. Cheers. X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 22:56, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Chess' oppose

1. Oppose. Hate to switch my vote, but the nominee not considering themselves involved in any of the three contentious topics mentioned in Q7 is illogical. The nominee seems to believe they are only involved if they have interacted with other editors or have directly edited the page in question. This is incorrect, editors heavily involved in an area don't get to use their admin powers in there. Involvement is construed broadly by the community to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute. I could understand feeling like a few disputes don't count, but the policy only excludes those whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits that do not show bias. Virtually all of their most edited talk pages are in those three CTs.[1] Just in GENSEX, I count 58 edits to Talk:Sex, 50 edits to Talk:J. K. Rowling, 46 to Talk:Kathleen Stock, 36 to Talk:Gender, 27 to Talk:Sex–gender distinction, 26 to Talk:Wi Spa controversy, and many more to dozens of pages in the topic area. A large amount of these edits are comments at RfCs and general disputes over GENSEX. One can also find many comments at WP:AE about GENSEX and the other two topic areas. [2] [3] [4] One might ask why this matters when the nominee is only going to do uncontroversial main page edits or RFPP. Being honest, WP:ANI is this users' most edited page behind their own user talk page. It's hard to believe they're telling the truth in Q3; all signs point to a nominee who is playing the role of a content creator for RfA, then will beeline straight to blocks/AE/etc once they get the bit for life. This is an editor who usually contributes to contentious topics, wants to become an admin, and is telling us directly that they don't feel as if they're involved in a subject area they have hundreds of edits in. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 13:30, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

   looking at the nominee's history, they've had problems with WP:INVOLVED non-admin closes in the past. For instance, Firefangledfeathers made multiple edits to the article Peter A. McCullough, saying he spread misinformation and generally reverting editors on whether to describe his views as misinformation.[5] [6] Firefangledfeathers then closed a discussion about whether to describe McCullough's views as misinformation, saying Not worth discussing with people who are not interested in improving content on Wikipedia. [7] [8] When called out on it by a third editor, their response was that it was OK since my closure was unrelated to the merits of the content dispute and said editor could just start a new discussion. [9] I agree with Firefangledfeathers on the underlying content dispute and the reasoning for the close, but they can't do both things at once and they don't seem to understand WP:INVOLVED. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 14:17, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

   saying "he spread misinformation" This is misleading, making it seem as though FFF introduced that language. The McCullough page appears to have attracted a huge amount of vandalism and disruptive editing. As far as I can tell, all of FFF's edits to the article were to revert said vandalism/blanking or to make trivial stylistic changes. One doesn't become involved by reverting vandalism. I tend to err on the side of not hatting discussions, so don't agree with doing so at this example, but it's a judgment call that's completely unrelated to WP:INVOLVED. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:38, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

   It's not misleading. Read the edit summary. [10] Reverted 2 edits by 47.185.179.115 (talk): Reliable sources state this as fact, we are summarizing what the sources say is not an anti-vandalism revert. It's a content dispute reversion that clearly endorses the claim that McCullough is spreading COVID misinformation. Being right in a content dispute doesn't mean the other person is performing vandalism. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 18:59, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

   You have identified a moment where FFF strained to assume good faith by providing an explanation where they would've been just as justified using a terse edit summary. But because they treated the now-blocked single-purpose POV pushers/edit warriors/vandals with some patience, it's somehow a WP:INVOLVED gotcha. No. It's a straightforward revert of an obviously bad edit and an uncontroversial application of wikipolicy. It would be absurd to promise not to use their tools in three vast topic areas, as though they wouldn't be able to exercise good judgment in articles about some state comptroller, FDA policy, athlete that happens to be gay, the National Parks budget, an STI, or some tax plan from the 1950s. With any admin it's going to be risky for them to use the tools in an area they edit in heavily, as it makes them a magnet for INVOLVED-related objections. The question is really more about whether FFF has good enough judgment to avoid those instances, rather than whether they'll take an abstinence pledge at RfA. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:16, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

   Said IP editor was never blocked. [11] And it's still WP:INVOLVED if the admin who was involved was obviously right in the content dispute. If I get into a content dispute with User:Example trying to POV-push that the Moon landing is fake, it would be an abuse of power for me to block them or close a discussion they started on the talk page. And I don't think the nominee is going to focus on protecting pages. I bet they're going to beeline for WP:AE or WP:ANI within the year given that's their main area of interest. I don't think they should be handing out WP:AE blocks in those topic areas. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:23, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

   Firefangledfeathers was likely right in the content dispute, but this is not reverting vandalism. Whereas this was a revert to material that seems at least borderline vandalism. Politrukki (talk) 22:38, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

   Another example is on Talk:Elliot Page on whether to include his deadname. Firefangledfeathers commented on discussions taking the position that said deadname should be included as Elliot Page was notable under such and project wide discussions therefore require the name. [12] [13] [14] A little less than a year later, Firefangledfeathers closed a bunch of talk page discussions started by people against including the deadname, telling them to go to MOS:DEADNAME. [15] Aside from this being a WP:INVOLVED close, it's not an accurate reading of the policy at the time of closing, which says A living transgender or non-binary person's former name should be included in the lead sentence of their main biographical article only if they were notable under it [16] Going by RFC 2119,[17] the standard for defining the word "should", says it's equivalent to a recommendation and is not a hard requirement to include DEADNAMEs. This view was also expressed at previous RfCs on the talk page (see Newimpartial's reply to Sdkb), [18] which said that MOS:DEADNAME is permissive, rather than obligatory, about deadnames in the lede. This seems like an example of an editor claiming there's a global consensus that doesn't really exist to early close a proposal they personally don't like. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 15:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

   @Chess: This doesn't seem like Firefangledfeathers was taking any position on the subject of MOS:DEADNAME (just telling an editor where to go to change it). This response would similarly not make them WP:INVOLVED in my opinion. This last diff seems more born out of frustration of dealing with a user who refused to WP:LISTEN that WP:LOCALCONSENSUS can't override a global one, but it's definitely blurring the lines for INVOLVEMENT.

   As for their stance regarding the permissiveness of MOS:DEADNAME, I would argue the view most editors have is its seen as a requirement to include a notable deadname rather than simply a recommendation which does not have to always be followed (that's just my understanding though). It's also slightly unfair to invoke Newimpartial's 2020 opinion here because they can't exactly clarify their position any more.

   Not trying to BLUDGEON an oppose, but I did feel the need to correct some of the record here. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:53, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

   @MJL: Apologies for the ping, I didn't follow that ANI thread until the ending. Regardless, the idea that there's a global consensus mandating inclusions of deadnames is and has been disputed, which I think the quote is clear about. You haven't explained why the first diff isn't taking a position: Discussion at this article talk page shouldn't override the status quo centralized consensus is a claim that there's a "centralized consensus". If Firefangledfeathers says that there's a centralized consensus

   to include deadnames, and someone else disagrees that consensus exists at that level, it's WP:INVOLVED

   to close the discussion with Selective use of Page's deadname is warranted per project-wide consensus at MOS:DEADNAME.

   There's no blurred lines when the policy says Non-administrators closing discussions and assessing consensus are held to the same standards; editors closing such discussions should not have been involved the discussion itself or related disputes. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 18:51, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

   @Chess: No worries, thanks for the ping. I'll try to keep this short.
   To be honest, I don't know enough about MOS:DEADNAME to tell you how disputed it is, so I can't respond there.
   The first diff was just meta-discussion about where policy can be changed and really could've happened on any article talk page and wasn't specific to Eliot Page. Chessinnit was advocating never including deadnames across the board regardless of prior notability which is substantively different than current global consensus.
   As for the other diffs, I probably wouldn't have made those closes because of that discussion with Dufaer. Though, I probably wouldn't issue a close-challenge just because I don't think it's close enough to easily call. To settle the issue though (because I do think the candidate has a decent understanding of WP:INVOLVED), I asked this question. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:38, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

   Eh, I've changed my mind about asking the question. I don't consider it helpful here. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:09, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

   The nominee seems to believe they are only involved if they have interacted with other editors or have directly edited the page in question. This is incorrect, editors heavily involved in an area don't get to use their admin powers in there. That seems like an incredibly uncharitable reading of FFF's reply to question seven, given that they specifically name an example of a topic where they believe that they are involved. They clearly accept that it's possible to be involved wrt a particular topic; what they disagree with is that they are involved with respect to the entirety of three incredibly broad topic areas. Looking at their edit history, it's not obvious to me that they should be considered involved wrt e.g. Build Back Better Plan, which is certainly within the scope of US politics broadly construed. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:25, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

   @Caeciliusinhorto-public: They have 45 contributions to talk page discussions about Joe Biden (52 if you count Let's Go Brandon) generally advocating for the exclusion of negative material, and 53 edits to Talk:Donald Trump which advocate for the inclusion of negative material. If you heavily edit pages about Joe Biden, I would say you can't go be an admin on his signature policy. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 17:29, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

   30 of those edits are to Biden-Ukraine conspiracy theory; I'm not seeing a single one to a talkpage about Biden's economic policy. Maybe they have edited Biden-related talkpages enough to consider them involved in the topic of Joe Biden broadly construed (though I think that's

   30 of those edits are to Biden-Ukraine conspiracy theory; I'm not seeing a single one to a talkpage about Biden's economic policy. Maybe they have edited Biden-related talkpages enough to consider them involved in the topic of Joe Biden broadly construed, but I can't see a case for them to be involved in a much broader topic area than thay. Your initial question was whether they are involved in American Politics broadly construed: do you seriously think their hundred-odd edits to biden- and trump-related talk pages makes them involved in the minutiae of Clinton's policies? In Nebraskan local politics? Does editing Trump- and Biden-related articles and talkpages make one involved re. Preston Daniels? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 23:46, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

   I don't think the nominee is going to focus on page protection for Preston Daniels like they're saying, I would say that judging by their edit history, they're going to go for blocks, WP:AE, WP:ANI, and the controversial topics. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:26, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

   I can say, as a new admin, that I can't imagine anyone wanting those duties. It's almost always shitty, people get mad at you, you lose friends, and you hurt people. They are, however, exceedingly important to keep things running. There are too few AE admins, threads often languish at ANI waiting for (often obvious) closure, and many articles and talk pages for CTOPs are absolute zoos. This is because almost no one wants to do this work.

   I'm not sure what would lead you to believe that Fff is aiming for the on-wiki equivalent of walking barefoot across a floor covered in Lego. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:52, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

   @ScottishFinnishRadish: What made me believe the nominee wants to participate in those areas is that ANI is their most edited non-user talk page. It's hard to believe they have no interest in it given how much effort the nominee has put into it in the past. Likewise, for the many articles and talk pages for CTOPs. Virtually all of their talk page edits are to contentious topics. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 19:29, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

   The question was broad, about those topic areas as a whole, not about any individual topics. And I note that FFF indicated they wouldn't act as an admin toward people they had extensive interactions with in those areas. I don't see a problem. Drmies (talk) 20:37, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I find this interpretation of WP:INVOLVED very disturbing. The implication is that as the lead coordinator of the Military history WikiProject, I cannot edit any Military History articles. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:05, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I would be quite worried if the all medical editors I have supported at RFA could not admin medical articles, issues or disputes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:31, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

J. K. Rowling as an example

Chess, my apologies for coming late to this discussion, as I've had a hard time catching up after some IRL ugly. In your oppose, you mention "50 edits to Talk:J. K. Rowling" ... along with ... "all signs point to a nominee who is playing the role of a content creator for RfA". J. K. Rowling was, at the same time, the most arduous and most successful Featured article review I have seen in more than 15 years. I got to see up close and personal who behaved and who did not, who was helpful and who was not, who was thorough, just, competent, policy-compliant, etc, during those five months, and as a regular participant in multiple Featured article reviews, I got to observe that Firefangledfeathers has stood out as exemplary. I would not describe the J. K. Rowling effort as a dispute at all; it was dozens of editors working together collaboratively and collegially (with very few exceptions and FFF was not one of those exceptions) towards producing an example of Wikipedia's best content. It strikes me as a bit unfair to single out an editor for having 50 edits in a CT topic, when that editing was collegial, and it seems to me that a more just approach would be to provide an example of any problematic edit during Wikipedia:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1, which includes five talk archives and some overflow to article talk. My experiences with FFF's demeanor and character at FAR are why I am a strong support; might you provide an example of why you find their participation at J. K. Rowling to be possibly indicative of more than the desire to produce top content? The type of very hard work that happens at FAR is just not "playing a role of content creator"; it's hard work, and when done correctly, produces fine results. Those of us who have worked with FFF at FAR have seen that; I'd like to understand why you hold a different view. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:08, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: sorry, I should've been more clear. I don't have any problems with their participation at that article and many of the others. I highly commend their contributions to ANI as well as to many of the talk pages. The problem I do have would be participation as an administrator in the GENSEX topic area, which is why I pointed out there many contributions. And more specifically, the playing the role of a content creator wasn't a diplomatic way to phrase what I was thinking. What I should've said was that the nominee's primary interest isn't in content creation, as they claim (probably because you can't win at RfA by promising to work at ANI); the nominee is more interested in dealing with user conduct issues and dispute resolution. I don't think they should deal with user conduct issues in WP:GENSEX.

The nominee excels at contributing to discussions and has put a decent amount of work into content creation, but I really do not want them to be involved at WP:AE or WP:ANI handing out tbans from the areas in which they've expressed numerous opinions, especially if said area is a contentious topic. My pointing out of their contributions at WP:ANI is because that's where I believe they will edit, so this isn't an idle concern. Though I really do think they would be an amazing admin, just not in the areas in which they're involved. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 22:30, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Chess, for the explanation; I understand what you are saying, even if I disagree (that FFF would ever engage in problematic admin conduct). Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:33, 10 July 2023 (UTC)