https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... edfeathers
There is so far only one oppose, by Homeostasis07, and yes, while it is obviously tainted by bias, the people who think FFF has the required qualities to be an Administrator, haven't addressed the elephant in the room.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... FormalDude
In an AN/I report that was framed thusly.....
.....and was eventually concluded thusly.....Imo, FormalDude has displayed extremely belligerent behaviour by continuously reverting any improvements to Kanye West, doesn't have a grasp of relevant policies, disregards consensus, and lacks basic civility. — hako9 (talk) 12:17, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
.....nobody has spotted the problem with FFF's contribution....Well only 2 comments in the last week, so I think it's safe to say no sanctions are forthcoming. That said, a lot of the original complaints had some merit, and shouldn't be ignored just because of the very premature ban proposal that followed them.
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.
hako9, you are reminded that there are many options for dispute resolution short of AN/I. Hopefully the clusterfuck of this thread is a good illustration of why it's best to avail oneself of them first.
As my bolding above shows, if there are quite a few people who turned up to this report to argue there is nothing to see and people with related concerns (which is what Homeostasis07 did) shouldn't raise them, Wikipedia has a problem.I think the only person that's pinged FormalDude since his last response here was you [Homeostasis07], a ping you delivered less than a week after saying you'd stop directly communicating with FD. This recent user talk page business is nothing: when a user resurrects a two-week-old user talk page thread just to complain about a month-old content dispute, the project can survive an editor describing that behavior as "pathetic". I join the chorus of voices suggesting you drop it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:37, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
If those people are Administrators, probably a VERY SERIOUS PROBLEM.
The "pathetic" remark refers to this....
It didn't take long to find the context (from the edit history of Stacey Abrams)......Your reverting edits based on false merits due to self published sources being allowed on information about themselves wp:ABOUTSELF, which itself is already used in the article
Bobisland (talk) 16:44, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
You seem to have no idea what you're talking about. Kindly stop messaging me. ––FormalDude (talk) 16:45, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
You did the same exact thing to me on Stacey Abrams' page. You arbitrarily undid a valid revert (for which I had provided a detailed explanation and verifiable internal links) without providing ANY reason whatsoever. Sean 2015 (talk) 02:49, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
Are you still talking about a single edit from over a month ago? Wow that's pathetic. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:34, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
At best, FFF (who was editing that Stacey Abrams page on that very same day) is blind to obvious breaches of policy in serious ways (unexplained reinsertion of contested and controversial claims into a BLP) and at worst, FFF thinks FormalDude is a rock star editor and turns up at AN/I reports about him in an effort to prevent their concerning behaviour from coming to light.04:44, 31 October 2022 Sean 2015 talk contribs 117,789 bytes −690 Removed false information. Abrams was NEVER on Joe Biden's short list of possible VP picks; she was never contacted by the Biden camp
05:09, 31 October 2022 FormalDude talk contribs 118,479 bytes +690 →Role in federal politics: Undid revision 1119187526 by Sean 2015 (talk)
10:48, 31 October 2022 Politrukki talk contribs 117,789 bytes −690 Undid revision 1119190603 by FormalDude (talk): per User:Sean 2015 – not even longlisted, according to this source. Please don't restore controversial content without proving you're not conducting original research.
On the flip side, if FFF genuinely thought Homeostasis07 was harassing FormalDude, as he himself seems to think, why was FFF's response so mild? Potential Admins should be stomping down hard on any signs of abuse of dispute resolution for harassment purposes. "Drop it" is far from the robust response the Foundation is looking for. It fits better with a theory that FFF is the type of person who abuses dispute resolution processes to protect friends whose edits are raising red flags but where the complexity of reports and animosity of participants are clouding the issues.
Put simply, the question is, the next time a clusterfuck of a thread is seen at AN/I, where one small part of it is another example of FormalDude making extremely bad edits to a BLP, what would Administrator FFF do?
As usual of course, the nomination statement paints FFF as an editor who would never in a million years make a mistake like that, and the answers to questions see FFF paint themselves as someone who knows precisely the importance of timely excision of BLP material and the seriousness of edit warring to reinsert it.
