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

Firefly[edit]

Final (246/0/0); Closed as successful by Primefac (talk) at 15:33, 11 March 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Nomination[edit]

Firefly (talk · contribs) – It is my great pleasure today to nominate Firefly for adminship. Friendly, talented, and dedicated, Firefly has been a trusted community member for a long time – he’s been editing since 2005 (previously as Richard0612 and Reticulated Spline) and served as an elected Bot Approvals Group member from 2008 to 2013. Firefly has never been blocked, has made 21,000 edits, and has written five GAs (mostly about computer science and engineering, but also one about fraudster Anna Sorokin!). Firefly is also a trainee ArbCom clerk, and contributes a great amount of maintenance and anti-abuse work. With his good judgment and expert grasp on Wikipedia policy and practice, I am confident that Firefly will serve the project well as one of our best administrators. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:27, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination by Barkeep49

It is always a pleasure to be able to nominate someone who can produce high quality content and who is an adroit technical editor. Firefly is both these things. And then on top of it, he is friendly and helpful. Truly the full package. To see what I mean, let's look at the GA that Kevin mentioned Anna Sorokin. Writing a GA BLP about someone who is notable as a fraud is always going to require a good understanding of many policies, guidelines, and community expectations. But there is a whole new set of skills to act as a responsible shepherd when the article goes from a few thousand views a day to hundreds of thousands a day after a hit Netflix series. And yet you can see Firefly navigate the increased editor interest with aplomb, working hard to keep the quality high while also letting new editors make their mark on the article. This is one story, among many, that explains why I hope you support Firefly's RfA. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:47, March 3, 2022 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nominations, and thank Kevin and Barkeep for their very kind words. I have never edited for pay, and I never will. My prior username and account are listed on my userpage. firefly ( t · c ) 15:33, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. Why are you interested in becoming an administrator?
A: Fundamentally, because I believe I could make myself useful as an administrator, and want to continue to help out. Much of my editing has been in the areas of cleaning up copyright issues (e.g. CCI and CopyPatrol) and dealing with spam and promotion. As such I’d probably look to start in adjacent admin areas such as performing RD1 revision deletions and G11/G12 page deletions and patrolling UAA for promotional usernames. I’ve also made a fair few SPI reports and have a decent handle on procedures there - with some guidance from the clerks I could see myself offering administrative assistance as needed.
Given my experience with templates and technical matters I’d also be happy to look at edit requests for things like additions to the spam blacklist. I’m sure I’ll branch out as I gain experience, as many people do, but I’ll only start out where I have a solid understanding already and not rush into anything.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: In content terms, while I’m proud of each of my GAs, I’d have to say that getting Windows XP (a widely-viewed article) back up to GA standards after being delisted was a lot of work but entirely worth it for an article that better serves readers. An honourable mention must go to Anna Sorokin, another article I took through GAN - I'm glad I could play a part in ensuring we had a quality article to serve its recent influx of readers.
In administrative areas, it would be my work with copyright cleanup and fighting spam. It’s an area that is chronically under-resourced and poses in extremis a real threat to Wikipedia’s core mission of free, neutral content available for use and reuse by all without encumbrance. CCI et al are Sisyphean tasks, but I am happy to make even a small dent in the backlog.
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: I think it’s inevitable that anyone who works in the areas I do will have disagreements with other users from time to time. For instance I can recall a few instances where I’ve removed some copyrighted content from an article, and the original editor has protested that my removal was in error because (e.g.) they purport to own the copyright and therefore believe they can add the text to Wikipedia.
In my opinion, the key thing to remember in any potentially emotive situation onwiki is that there is almost never a need to respond or act immediately (obvious exceptions to the latter apply, such as egregious BLP violations, or things requiring contacting emergency@). If in any doubt whatsoever, I take some time to do something else, and then come back to it. On returning, I make sure that I’ve understood the message(s) involved fully, and then look at responding. Regardless of the tone of other messages, I always endeavour to stay at the top of the ‘disagreement pyramid’ - i.e. responding to the substance of the matter rather than tone. I think it’s also very important in any discussion to remain open to the possibility of simply being wrong, and if that happens - to say so, apologise, and move on.
Administrators in particular should be committed to de-escalating rather than inflaming conflict with their actions and comments, and I will wholeheartedly commit to doing so should I be trusted with the mop.

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.

Optional question from Sdrqaz
4. Firefly, you made zero edits from the aforementioned accounts in the periods April 2009 – October 2014, January 2015 – March 2018, and September 2018 – January 2021. Could you comment on these bouts of inactivity?
A: Of course. I found my way back to Wikipedia last year, having dropped off the radar for a while since my last active period owing to real-life work priorities (which account for all the gaps, really). Editing has since then become a part of my day (as no doubt is the case for many of us), and I don’t see that changing any time in the foreseeable future.
Optional question from Mhawk10
5. Where on the deletionism-inclusionism spectrum do you fall and why?
A: I think the answer to this depends on the specific type of content we're talking about. Ultimately I feel we should do whatever would be of maximum service to readers - that may be deleting something (in the case of obvious spam or self-promotion for instance), merging a very small article into a 'parent' article if one exists, or keeping an article outright if warranted. We should however also bear in mind that each additional article increases the maintenance burden on editors - that thought may bias me more toward merging on occasion. I'm not sure where that places me on the spectrum - perhaps a mix of AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTAD and mergism?
Optional question from CactiStaccingCrane
6. Besides contributors' copyright investigations, what would being an administrator help you at content creation?
A: Fundamentally, it wouldn't. Being an adminstrator is orthogonal to content creation - indeed, administrators should not use their tools in areas where they have strong feelings or have been involved in disputes. Personally, I'd steer clear of using tools around articles where I have made significant contributions to avoid even the appearance of WP:INVOLVED actions.
Optional question from Ab207
7. Would you be open to recall? If yes, what is the criteria you are ideally looking at?
A: Yes - I wouldn't want to remain an admin if I had lost the trust of the community. If I pass, I will detail my recall criteria in userspace as is I believe the typical procedure. I would take inspiration from the criteria of other administrators I trust when designing the specifics.
Optional question from Floq
8. Support. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:49, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a question. If you want to support, dear Floquenbeam, please do this here. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 09:56, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Let me thank you on behalf of the candidate: thank you for your vote in here. --Victor Trevor (talk) 20:23, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A:
Optional question from Ad Orientem
9. Is it ever ok for an admin to delete a page from the mainspace entirely on their own initiative, w/o it either being first nominated for deletion or reviewed by another admin? Explain (briefly).
A: Yes, and indeed this happens regularly. The speedy deletion policy permits admins to delete articles at their discretion if they meet one of the criteria defined in the policy (there are other nuances to consider as well as simply meeting a criterion, e.g. in many cases whether an article has survived its most recent deletion discussion, but I will try to keep my answer brief as requested!). For articles, the relevant criteria are the "A" set (mainspace only), and the "G" set (any namespace). In practice, speedy deletions usually result from someone tagging an article, and then an admin reviewing the tag & deleting if they are in agreement. While this is not required, it is probably a good thing - acting as a pseudo-separation of duties - and even as an admin I would tag and leave for someone to review if I was in any doubt whatsoever that a page met a criterion.
👍 Like -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:08, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Celestina007
10. You already have my vote, I note you say you have worked in anti spam and promotion this is great, please explain to me what measures or ideas you have in mind to negate this sort of editing if giving the mop?
A: Thank you Celestina! I would probably look to patrol places like CAT:G11 and handle reports at WT:WPSPAM and the cross-wiki Antispam project that require admin attention. I could also see myself handling spam blacklist requests given my familiarity with regex.
Optional question from Severestorm28
11. I have already supported you, is there other areas in Wikipedia you would like to work in?
A: Thanks! Beyond those mentioned in my answers to Q1 and Q10, I don't think so as yet - although that of course may change as time passes.
Optional question from Hawkeye7
12. An editor repeatedly edits a mathematics article to add their own conjecture, which is reverted by other editors on the grounds that it was proven false over a century ago. The editors asserts that everyone is entitled to express their own opinion on Wikipedia, since it is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and that WP:V is just an argument from authority. Which of our policies and procedures apply, and how should such an editor be dealt with?
A: I am assuming for the purposes of this scenario that the editor is adding the conjecture as fact, and without suitable sourcing - i.e. rather than something like "in the past, it was conjectured that <blah>[cite], however...". Adding the conjecture as fact without citations to reliable, independent sources would almost certainly count as original research, which is not permitted in articles. As such, the content should be removed, and the editor warned. I would also take the opportunity to explain that everyone is entitled to express their opinion (within reasonable bounds) in discussions on Wikipedia, but not in articles themselves, which must comply with our various policies on verifiability and reliable sourcing. If the editor in question continues to re-insert the content, they are liable to be temporarily blocked for edit warring, or indefinitely for not being here to contribute to the encyclopedia (given their rejection of core policies) depending on their other contributions.
Optional question from 2601:647:5800:1A1F:CFD:F514:CDE6:9187
13. An administrator deletes a page on a band incorrectly per A7, as the page makes a claim of significance for the band winning an award, but the page does not meet notability guidelines by a hair, and would probably not pass at AFD. Do you leave the deleted article alone, or do you undelete it and start an AFD discussion?
A: The first thing I would do, assuming I felt strongly enough to do anything, would be to ask the deleting administrator about the deletion, and request that they restore it, as I wouldn't want to go unilaterally overturning another admin's action in a case like this. If the deleting administrator is not willing to restore the page, I could take the issue to deletion review (rather than undelete-and-AfD, as DRV is the correct venue for challenging disputed speedy deletions). Whether I do that in this scenario would probably depend on the merits of the article itself - a single line article along the lines of "Band Foo are a cool band and they won <award> in 2021[cite to primary source]" would likely not motivate me to contest the deletion strongly, whereas a more complete, well-sourced article may.
Optional question from TheresNoTime
14. Is ANI pronounced A N I or Annie?
A: I admit that I've always pronounced it ay-enn-eye in my head, but I really want annie to catch on if only for the potential Smooth Criminal jokes. I would also question in what circumstances any of us would actually be saying "ANI" out loud...
Optional question from 2601:647:5800:1A1F:3818:F34C:9418:4F2E
15. Let's say an article has held a copyright violation for a long time, but nobody notices and editing continues as normal, for many revisions. Later, you stumble upon the article, and decide to revdel some of the revisions. Do you revdel all of the revisions containing the violation, or do you only revdel the revisions where the copyright material was added, or somewhere in between?
A: There is only a point in using revdel for copyright infringement if all the infringing revisions are redacted - otherwise the material remains accessible. Whether to use revdel for 'historic' copyvio is definitely a judgment call - and involves balancing the amount of infringing material removed with the age and number of intervening revisions.


Discussion[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

Support[edit]
  1. I am familiar with Firefly's excellent work around the project and we could always use more administrators working in copyright cleanup. DanCherek (talk) 15:35, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support – I have had nothing but positive experiences with this user, and I absolutely trust them in matters of copyright cleanup, a field that, as DanCherek mentioned, could use some more hands on deck. — GhostRiver 15:36, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Without question. Firefly is an excellent editor and has a great head on his shoulders. Has my trust to use the tools well, will be a great addition to the mop corps. SubjectiveNotability a GN franchise (talk to the boss) 15:37, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. As co-nom. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:38, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Immediate Support. It's about time! Panini! • 🥪 15:40, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Per DanCherek. Signed,The4lines |||| (Talk) (Contributions) 15:40, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Great contributor. 0 red flags Firefly is indeed a gem. Celestina007 (talk) 15:42, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Fully endorse, they pass the requirements with flying colors. ––FormalDude talk 15:44, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  9. This is one I've been waiting for. Firefly brings a rare combination of skills to the table: He's a good writer, is technically skilled (more-block-info has quickly become one of my favourite scripts), has experience in combating abuse, knows and cares about the very much understaffed area of copyright investigations, and – perhaps most importantly – is a pleasant and thoughtful person. I wholeheartedly support handing him the mop. --Blablubbs (talk) 15:45, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Without a doubt. [Placeholder for when I have time to write something longer]. -- Asartea Talk | Contribs 15:54, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  11. No issues Megan B.... It’s all coming to me till the end of time 15:56, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  12. I am not personally familiar with Firefly, but his nomination by Kevin and Barkeep - two people whose judgment I have the highest regard for - is good enough for me. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:59, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  13. I see no issue. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 16:02, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Already done my research, no issues. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:03, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support - an excellent individual, and would be an excellent admin Nosebagbear (talk) 16:06, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support - I think he is much qualified for the job, based on my interactions with him (mostly off-wiki). He has a need for the tools as he is fairly active in copyright cleanup. I'm also impressed by his content work, including his good articles, so he's well rounded on that count. Finally, he has a cool previous username. Epicgenius (talk) 16:10, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Had great experiences with him. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 16:11, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Strong mixture of content-creation and admin background. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:14, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support, without hesitation. Firefly has always been friendly and insightful in all my experiences with him, and that alongside his great skills (across the board!) would make him a fantastic sysop. Giraffer (talk·contribs) 16:17, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support I recognise the name, but essentially in line with MelanieN. Happy days ~ LindsayHello 16:18, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. Valuable contributor, can certainly be trusted with tools. — kashmīrī TALK 16:21, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Competent, trustworthy. Vexations (talk) 16:22, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support As my first thought was "Wait I thought they already were an admin?" Obvious positive to have the tools. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:25, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  24. (edit conflict) Support — Has a clue, assumes good faith, many GAs, and, of course, no red flags. It still stands — we are clearly losing sysops. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 16:30, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  25. I am firmly in the "it's about time" camp. -- Tavix (talk) 16:32, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support valuable contributor, trusted user. — B203GTB (talk) • 16:36, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. Fully behind this editor! also thank you and congratulations on your long tenure, sweet 16 last December! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 16:37, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Strong Support. Full support + fully trust this editor. Will use the tools for the benefit of the project. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 16:45, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  29. I had this one pre-watchlisted. Every time I have seen Firefly around, I have been consistently impressed by his calm, rational demeanor, his knowledge of policy, and his dedication. I think he'll be a fantastic administrator. --Dylan620 (he/him · talk · edits) 16:47, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support without a doubt. — Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 16:49, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Was already on my list of potential candidates. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:49, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Enthusiastic Support. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:51, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Yes, yes, yes :). Femke (talk) 17:01, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support happily as nominator. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:05, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support will be a net positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:11, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. No reason not to. /Julle (talk) 17:12, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support ~ Matthewrb Talk to me · Changes I've made 17:14, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support A good candidate. Akshaypatill (talk) 17:23, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support - his content work in addition to the behind-the-scenes work makes this easy to support. -- LuK3 (Talk) 17:24, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Turning red links blue is a particular collegiacy. SN54129 17:33, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support – Would be a great admin :D Justiyaya 17:46, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support Firefly is a great contributor and has a wonderful attitude. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 17:49, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support - Good track record, not a jerk, has a clue. W. Tell DCCXLVI (talk to me!/c) 18:05, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support absolutely. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:10, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support Solid editor who has what it takes to be a good admin. Schwede66 18:16, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support. Firefly's impressive content creation, strong experience in administrative areas, and unflappable temperament convince me that he'll be a top-notch sysop. No concerns whatsoever. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:26, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support heck! I didn't know! Take your mop, my friend. Sennecaster (Chat) 18:28, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support: long overdue. Very skilled editor, no temperament concerns and works in areas where we desperately need more admins. Thank you for running for RfA! — Bilorv (talk) 18:29, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Can't find any reason not to give this user a mop. — THIS IS TREY MATURIN 18:35, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support- No issues with the candidate from me. Good luck!   Aloha27  talk  18:44, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Delighted to support, per noms and my own observations in various areas of the project. Great to see this off to a strong start. Not a jerk, has a clue; happy days; why not? Etc. Girth Summit (blether) 18:50, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  52. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:50, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support I am unbothered by bouts of inactivity. Protonk (talk) 19:17, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support, a great editor who deserves the mop. Sea Cow (talk) 19:18, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support. MER-C 19:22, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support—an all-round brilliant candidate for adminship. Firefly has an abundance of clue (both of policy and technical skill), and is certainly no jerk. I look forward to welcoming them to the team, even if it is very overdue! -- TNT (talk • she/her) 19:25, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support. What a good idea. Thank you for volunteering.— Diannaa (talk) 19:32, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support Absolutely. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:37, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support per Kevin and Barkeep --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    ) 19:44, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support, WP:NOBIGDEAL. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:45, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support SQLQuery Me! 19:56, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:05, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support Seems like a great candidate for adminship. Happy to support. Kosack (talk) 20:08, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support I like it when they've already been well tested in some tough areas. North8000 (talk) 20:13, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support Absolutely! CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:15, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support A model candidate. Chaddude (talk) 20:28, 4 March 2022 (UTC)Chaddude14[reply]
  67. Support Clearly HERE, and the mop is NOBIGDEAL. Everyone's life gets in the way of editing at some point(s) in time, so the gaps in activity are not a problem. HouseBlastertalk 20:31, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support Good idea, and thank you for standing. Jip Orlando (talk) 20:40, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support - Can't see any red flags. Net asset. Onel5969 TT me 21:07, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support easy support — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:17, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  71. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:32, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support. No concerns, looks like a strong candidate. Best of luck! –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:52, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support It's about time. Scorpions13256 (talk) 22:01, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  74. I only see this when there are already 73 supports? Oh well -- I've been looking forward to this one for months, it's no surprise everyone else was too! Now you have no excuse not to finish the GAN bot ;) Vaticidalprophet 22:11, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Easy support About time you ran. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 22:23, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support You've done some great work. Lkb335 (talk) 22:31, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support seems nice, no concerns. Colonestarrice (talk) 22:33, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support Great work. -- lomrjyo (talk) 22:37, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  79. I have no concerns. Also long periods of inactivity doesn't take away from the positive. NYC Guru (talk) 22:43, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support Thought they were an admin already. SportingFlyer T·C 23:01, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support easily, great content, technical, and administrative contributor eviolite (talk) 23:32, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support despite there still being no GAN bot... this candidacy was long overdue and I am happy to support it. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:05, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support I appreciate FF's work, and trust the noms. Welcome aboard! Miniapolis 00:27, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support Good user and have been here for a long time. Thingofme (talk) 00:42, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support An excellent candidate. We need more Admins. --Bduke (talk) 00:49, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support - I'm not particularly familiar with the candidate, but I respect both nominators and see a lot of people whose judgment I trust supporting. Hog Farm Talk 01:10, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support, having had reassurances about future activity. For clarity, Q4 was based on concerns that Firefly might become inactive soon in the future – not because I want an explanation of what he was up to during those years away. The candidate is a competent editor who has flair in topic choice and a good temperament. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:14, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support not a jerk, has a clue. will be an excellent addition to the admin corps. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:33, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support with a few differences from the usual (absences from editing, chasing copyright issues) a good candidate JarrahTree 02:36, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support. I use the Firefly Linter count everyday. Its creator automatically gets my support. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 04:12, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 04:49, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support Why not? -FASTILY 05:44, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support I am not familiar with the candidate's work here, we apparently have not intersected anywhere that I can remember. I have looked at a "quick and dirty" sample of his work and interaction with others. I could not find any valid cause to oppose, so herewith my support !vote. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:32, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support, I do not currently see any problems.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:20, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support, I've only noticed good things from this editor. Graham87 07:39, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support, solid work without the tools, looking forward to even more with the tools. Cabayi (talk) 08:53, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support, did a quick review, couldn't find any red flags. Though I haven't had much interaction with him, he's being unanimously supported by everyone I know are great editors/administrators. I see no issue with granting him the mop. All the best. ---CX Zoom(he/him) (let's talk|contribs) 09:51, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support per nom. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:12, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support absolutely no issues here. Anarchyte (talk) 11:07, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support: Very happy to WP:100 support this excellent user, who would, I think, definately make a great admin! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:09, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support to cancel out the unwarranted neutral, and to say that, unlike some, I read the userboxes and I like tea too. SpinningSpark 11:45, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support as he would be a good addition — DaxServer (t · c) 11:49, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support: Strangely I have one reason not to support which would be an inappropriate reason to !vote oppose and possibly a reason to !vote neutral over one point unique to myself. But mop to this user is very much an overwhelming net benefit. Handling of withdrawal Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pool Party Massacre was good and shows willingness to change mind when necessary. Involvement of User:FireflyBot notifying creators of five months inactivity in draft is also a plus point, and means I am absolutely pleased to support. Periods of inactivity explained and not a problem to me. Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:59, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 12:05, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  105. —Kusma (talk) 13:14, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support Seems to be a good candidate. scope_creepTalk 13:21, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support. I am familiar with Firefly's work in ArbCom, which shows a good track record of good editing decisions. Bibeyjj (talk) 13:24, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support Experienced editor with no redflags. -- Ab207 (talk) 13:57, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support I'm so happy to see this RfA! I've had plenty of interactions with Firefly aand know them as a greatly competent technical editor who is a pleasure to interact with and has a very high clue level. Good luck! --Trialpears (talk) 13:59, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support this great candidate! No red flags to me. — ((u|Bsoyka)) talk 14:22, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Support - No nomination by Barkeep49 needs any additional due diligence by me. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:27, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Support unconditionally. A very strong nomination statement and nothing found to oppose is a no-brainer for me. Ifnord (talk) 16:29, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Support The project needs more admin and this candidate is qualified. JBchrch talk 17:01, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Support as I believe he would be a good administrator. Rusty4321 talk contributions log 18:35, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Support Good mixture of content and back-end work, no concerns. Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:40, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Support per previous interactions. Happy to see this. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:21, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Support unhesitatingly as candidate is a great asset for the project. Thanks for being willing to wield the mop. Loopy30 (talk) 21:19, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  118. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:28, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Support – absolutely reliable and trustworthy candidate. DBaK (talk) 21:47, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Support glad to see Firefly has decided to RfA. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:23, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Support - sounds like a good one! Atsme 💬 📧 22:45, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Support No issues. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 23:02, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Support very good content work, and anti-vandalism work, no reason to oppose Atlantic306 (talk) 23:35, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Support net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:38, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Support: Even though we never met, Firefly has made many constructive contributions, like bringing articles up to GA and removing bad nominations on WP:RPP. Nice job Firefly! I.hate.spam.mail.here (talk | contributions) 02:12, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Support Trustworthy; will be an asset to the project with the tools. SpencerT•C 05:23, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Support Yes! × 3. Chlod (say hi!) 06:37, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:54, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Support Looks like a great future admin. DB1729 (talk) 06:57, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Support A very strange comment by a highly experienced editor made me wait a while to see if there was anything of substance to be concerned about, but it seems that this was only a bizarre attempt at "humor". After a deeper look. I will agree with Newyorkbrad: "Fully qualified candidate." Cullen328 (talk) 07:09, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Support. This nominee seems to me to have all the qualities Wikipedia needs in a conscientious administrator, I'm happy to support this candidacy. – Athaenara ✉ 08:13, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Support EN-Jungwon 08:15, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Support Absolutely. Net positive. --Jack Frost (talk) 09:15, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Support - Will be a WP:NETPOSITIVE.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:57, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Support - no concerns here. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:00, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Just take the damn mop already. Seddon talk 12:21, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Support. One of those RfAs I've been expecting for a while, so I'll just say per nom and basically all above. Regards SoWhy 12:36, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Support —MdsShakil (talk) 13:52, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Support I've no problems with giving this user the bit. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 14:06, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  140. Support per all the above and the fact that I've only had positive interactions with them. AryKun (talk) 14:33, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Support Happy for another admin to be added. Severestorm28 14:39, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  142. Support Solid candidate who in all honesty had my support even before their excellent answer to my question. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:14, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  143. Support - A very competent editor who is trusted by the community. Netherzone (talk) 15:38, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  144. Support—Firefly can most definitely be trusted with adminship. Kurtis (talk) 15:49, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  145. Support - A very reliable and competent editor, and has excellent knowledge on coding and script development. Wikipedia always needs administrators like this. Would eb really happy to see his work as an administrator. Best wishes. ItcouldbepossibleTalk 15:50, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  146. Support Thought he already was. --BDD (talk) 16:28, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  147. Would be helpful, no problems here. --Ferien (talk) 16:34, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  148. Support: Haven't encountered this editor, and wouldn't normally have commented, but there are so many firm supports, above, from editors I particularly respect that an additional support from me seems called for. Tim riley talk 17:22, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  149. Support - net positive, can be trusted with the tools. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 17:25, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  150. Support Nice to see a skilled technical editor run for adminship. They have some impressive content contributions, have won the trust of two good nominators (and apparently plenty of other editors), and there are no red flags. Modussiccandi (talk) 18:42, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  151. Wizardman 18:59, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  152. Support The area of copyright needs a lot of work, and someone with technical know-how is always appreciated. Like others, the bouts of inactivity doesn't bother me. Everyone needs a break once and awhile, you know? ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 19:50, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  153. Support. How could I not support Firefly?! I've loved working with him, and Firefly having admin tools would only be a net positive to the project from my perspective. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:52, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  154. Support and support aaand support. ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 20:32, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  155. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:24, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  156. Support. A well-known, respected editor; no concerns. ((u|Sdkb)) talk 21:27, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  157. Support For me, this is a "I thought they were an admin" situation. Equineducklings (talk) 21:32, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  158. Support how can I not join this band of merry yea-sayers! (do I leave the humour tag here? Sorry new at this ... humour, that is). Joke aside; civil, has a clue...had me at civil. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:35, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  159. Support - No concerns. -- Dane talk 22:48, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  160. Support - Excellent editor from all my interactions, no concerns about him getting the tools. Glennfcowan (talk) 00:03, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  161. Support. Excellent content contributions. — Newslinger talk 00:37, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  162. Support. No controversies, diligent work behind the screen. SunDawntalk 01:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  163. Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:16, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  164. Support. This is clearly a qualified candidate. Mz7 (talk) 05:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  165. Support. Ready to take up the role, no concerns. Zippybonzo (talk) 07:30, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  166. Support – definitely a competent, helpful, and sane candidate. much like others here, I thought he was an admin already! :D theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 07:32, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  167. Support. Don't see nothing wrong, good candidate. Viewer719 (talk) 08:41, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  168. Support - A good and competent editor from all I've read above --Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 11:35, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  169. Support - A long term contributor with excellent reputation. Hughesdarren (talk) 11:51, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  170. Support, thought he already was one. Stifle (talk) 12:40, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  171. Support Mathsci (talk) 12:52, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  172. Support. Wait, you mean you weren't one already? Well, that needs to be fixed! ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:25, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  173. Support — Golden call me maybe? 13:27, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  174. RFX200 – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs)
  175. – SD0001 (talk) 14:07, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  176. Support easily Eddie891 Talk Work 15:34, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  177. Support I've never interacted with this candidate, but their recent contribs are excellent. Best of luck. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 15:59, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  178. Support Glad to support and thank you so much for Firefly Bot and the valuable work it does! Liz Read! Talk! 17:59, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  179. Of course. Firefly has been a real asset in the copyright field, both with his work and his CCI stats. Moneytrees🏝️Talk🌵CCI guide 18:12, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  180. Support, a good egg. BD2412 T 18:15, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  181. Support thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 19:03, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  182. Support LGTM --DannyS712 (talk) 19:24, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  183. support I have rarely seen Firefly here 'n there. I am not sure if we've interacted before. But given the support votes here, there tenure/contributions, and based on my a little of digging, I have no concerns at all. I also think that this RfA should have taken place sooner. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:42, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  184. Support. I mean 163-0 at this point is really all I need to know. I believe that we need more admins (my opinion), so yes put this editor in. Herostratus (talk) 20:16, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  185. Not an admin yet? Goodness gracious time to correct that oversight. Thanks for standing. Folly Mox (talk) 21:21, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  186. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 22:01, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  187. Stephen 22:07, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  188. Support. Though we haven't crossed paths much, there are too many folks I admire above that support this nomination. GenQuest "scribble" 00:09, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  189. Support ―sportzpikachu my talkcontribs 01:48, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  190. Support Yep! Legoktm (talk) 03:22, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  191. Support no concerns. Mkdw talk 03:45, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  192. Support – Adumbrativus (talk) 03:53, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  193. Support. Good luck! — sparklism hey! 08:01, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  194. Support - Denisarona (talk) 10:02, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  195. Support Seems to be the kind of level headed editor, who has no idea who I am, that we need weilding the mop. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  196. Support Why not? Reading BeansTalk to the Beans 11:53, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  197. Support -Leomk0403 (Don't shout here, Shout here!) 12:03, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  198. of course --v/r - TP 14:06, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  199. Support I see no red flags, good luck! --► Sincerely: Solavirum 15:37, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  200. Support Administrators are trusted members of the community. They are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. Administrators are also expected to learn from experience and from justified criticisms of their actions.
    Based on the support votes above, I have confidence Firefly can meet these requirements. (WP:200) Rlink2 (talk) 15:48, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  201. Support Great work with copyright enforcement. NoahTalk 17:08, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  202. Support -- Happy to pile on my support for this experienced candidate, who has a clue and can be trusted with the tools! - tucoxn\talk 17:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  203. Support I see no reason to oppose. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:36, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  204. Support I have him around the community doing great things! Heart (talk) 20:55, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  205. Support. Demonstrates trustworthiness. Willingness to learn arb-clerking. Not a disruptor. Supporters and nominators I admire. I see no downside as of this date stamp. BusterD (talk) 22:31, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  206. Support - LGTM :) ✨ Ed talk! ✨ 22:34, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  207. Support, no problem and welcome Carlosguitar (Yes Executor?) 23:15, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  208. Support Leijurv (talk) 00:23, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  209. Support - seems unlikely to abuse the tools. Guettarda (talk) 00:33, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  210. Support No obvious problems. NW1223 <Howl at me•My hunts> 01:26, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  211. Support >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 01:35, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  212. Reticulate. Failing that, support. (Darn, I missed 200.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 02:11, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  213. Support Aoi (青い) (talk) 02:33, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  214. Support as I might as well jump on the bandwagon. Beyond that, Firefly is an excellent candidate and deserves the mop. Rollidan (talk) 02:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  215. Support. Firefly has been around so long and done so much good work I was kinda surpass to realize they weren't already an admin. Levelheaded, thoughtful, competent, and collegial. Everything an admin should be. oknazevad (talk) 02:47, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  216. Support. Have seen the copyvio and clerking work. Happy to see someone so trusted pick up the mop. Note to future RFA candidates: I automatically support anyone with a username starting with "Firef" for unbiased reasons. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 03:18, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  217. Support May as well join the pile on. No concerns, welcome the the corps! --TheSandDoctor Talk 03:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  218. Support - glad to see this. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 03:36, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  219. Support - Looks perfect! Would love to see more of such candidates in the future-- as Oknazevad said, "thoughtful [and] collegial." GeraldWL 04:51, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  220. Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:13, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  221. Support Volten001 09:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  222. Support Seems very deserving of it. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 14:00, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  223. Support Nick Moyes (talk) 16:54, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  224. Support will be a great asset. Doug Weller talk 17:33, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  225. Support – Well qualified. EdJohnston (talk) 17:40, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  226. Support I am familiar with Firefly's work as a bot maintainer and am satisfied. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:55, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  227. Support - Happy withb the answers to Q12 and Q13. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:14, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  228. Support - Good-tempered, technically knowledgeable. MarioGom (talk) 07:22, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  229. It doesn't look like you need my support, with no opposes or neutrals so far, but I'm happy to give it anyway. No red flags, experienced, content creator and has a clue, so what's not to like? Welcome to the corps.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:03, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  230. Support Why not? Double sharp (talk) 11:05, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  231. Support because why not? Clog Wolf Howl 15:27, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  232. Suppport. No hesitation. Drmies (talk) 16:00, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  233. Support Great candidate. Congratulations on getting the admin rights Firefly. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 16:56, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  234. Support Looks perfect. دَستخَط، اِفلاق (کَتھ باتھ) 17:38, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  235. Support. LGTM, as they say! Lots of great contributions. Looking forward to working with you this summer :) Enterprisey (talk!) 19:30, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  236. Support – Toad40 (talk) 21:27, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  237. Support. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:01, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  238. Support --Kpddg (talk • contribs) 05:38, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  239. Looks good. -- CptViraj (talk) 09:14, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  240. Support -- Looks like a competant editor to me. -- Dolotta (talk) 12:02, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  241. Support. Pamzeis (talk) 13:06, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  242. Support A qualified candidate, and congrats on WP:200. (Not part of my !vote, just some advice for the candidate) Re. your answer to Q11, I can assure you that having more tools and more responsibility is quite empowering and can motivate you to expand your scope of work. That was true for me, anyway (not necessarily on Wikipedia, but definitely on other wikis). Just remember when to take your admin hat off, and never be ashamed to admit ignorance. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 13:35, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  243. Support Certainly. Thank you for volunteering, Vermont (talk) 13:41, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  244. Support -- the wub "?!" 14:44, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  245. Support ZettaComposer (talk) 14:51, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  246. Support Great answers; I especially like Firefly's approach to minimizing conflict. Good advice for anyone. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:30, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
 Bureaucrat note::non-oppose moved to #General comments below. Primefac (talk) 08:38, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
Neutral - per your acceptance statement: "My prior username and account are listed on my userpage." I visited your user page several times (to be sure I wasn't just missing it) and I did not see any such declaration of prior accounts. Though I came to support, I am instead neutral; for the time your statement prompted me to waste.--John Cline (talk) 01:49, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, they are listed on the infoboxes: This user edited under a previous user name of Richard0612 and This user edited under a previous user name of Reticulated Spline. eviolite (talk) 02:00, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have stricken my neutral stance per this timestamp.--John Cline (talk) 02:25, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - Toad40 (talk) 20:55, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice to know the reason why, if you want to give it. I have an inherent distrust of elections that give 100% support (they just seem a bit too North Korean to me) but it would still be good to know why anyone has to declare their lack of support here, just in case people above have missed something. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:05, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I actually support Firedly, but like you said, I get suspicious when I see 100% support. Also because even if I voted in support, it wouldn't make a difference. Is it weird that I did this? Toad40 (talk) 21:14, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
People are really not going to be happy with your decision to do that. I would recommend moving to support or deleting your !vote. Scorpions13256 (talk) 21:19, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, will do. Toad40 (talk) 21:22, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Who are these "people"? What does it matter if someone decides not to follow the crowd? If I was being discussed here I would be much more unhappy with your comment than any action of Toad40's. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:28, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just going by what I have seen at past RFA's. Scorpions13256 (talk) 21:34, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
General comments[edit]

 Bureaucrat note:: moved from #Oppose. Primefac (talk) 08:38, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question 1 I'd like to know what User:Firefly would recommend be done if someone accidentally placed a question in the oppose section. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:23, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit academic, you'd get this first. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:28, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
<joke>They might use their super clerk abilities to move your comment to the correct section </joke> Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 00:32, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It counts as an oppose, but it's only a question? Thingofme (talk) 01:07, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Having fun yet, Floquenbeam? – Athaenara ✉ 02:37, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is quite sad to see, coming from a widely respected editor. What's actually going on here? Cullen328 (talk) 06:36, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to ask an actual question, please feel free to do so in the appropriate section. Given that the candidate is not applying to be a bureaucrat, though, this seems to be a non-question. Primefac (talk) 08:38, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Does this question counts as an oppose? The oppose number is still 1. Thingofme (talk) 10:20, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't show me any longer. To me it shows (100 S/ 0 O/ 1 N). ---CX Zoom(he/him) (let's talk|contribs) 11:45, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which is still wrong since the neutral has been struck. SpinningSpark 11:49, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the module might be picking up the # in Floq's moved !vote above as a neutral vote? --Blablubbs (talk) 12:06, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's strange, frustrating even, but I've found out how to fix this. Basically, one needs to prepend one more # right at the start of each message in that thread. It changes the resultant neutral vote totals to 0, BUT adds the serial number 1 before the vote. You guys decide what to do. ---CX Zoom(he/him) (let's talk|contribs) 12:47, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Cullen328, Primefac — Have you ever heard of this thing called humor? Because I've heard that Floq practices that a lot, and so does Bishonen. I guess you take Wikipedia more seriously, and that's fine… we all have our own views. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 13:28, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Should we add the ((humor)) tag? Thingofme (talk) 13:53, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Thingofme — I don't know… then others might now take this RfA as seriously. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 14:09, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
RfA is a serious thing, but the ((humor)) is only in a question labeled in the "Oppose" section. Thingofme (talk) 14:35, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's best practice to use humor sparingly when we're discussing a person (who is closely following this page) in detail, and especially when jokes are made in the oppose section, potentially making them unpleasant for the candidate. Giraffer (talk·contribs) 15:15, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Giraffer — Good point, only use the ((humor)) template if it is obviously humor. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 15:31, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
3PPYB6, all I can say is this - RfA is an extremely stressful process, and something that seems funny to you might not seem funny to the editor going through hell week. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:23, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GeneralNotability — Again, assume good faith… like Jimbo Wales said, "RfA is a horrible and broken process". If I were nominated someday and I see something similar to that I would likely might as well explode. To be honest, it wasn't that funny to me… I just wanted us all to understand why Floq left that in the Oppose section. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 18:33, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bbb23 fixed the counter (thanks!). If people really want to continue litigating the (non-)!vote in question, now would probably be a good time to move that to the talk page so as to not clutter up this section. --Blablubbs (talk) 15:35, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic, even for this section
FLOQ! Go home! You are drunk and/or disorderly! --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:22, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Blablubbs: too late. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:31, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What? Viewer719/Contribs! 13:34, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What is happening? SoyokoAnis - talk 15:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're both socks, that's all. SN54129 23:38, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Viewer719/Contribs! 10:32, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, I remember when I had socks. Those days are over now. SoyokoAnis - talk 16:07, 8 March 2022 (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.
Category