Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin

"WP:RFA" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Requested articles, Wikipedia:Requests for administrator attention, Wikipedia:Featured articles, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests, or requests for assistance at Wikipedia:Help desk.
Note: Although this page is under extended confirmed protection, non-extended confirmed editors may still comment on individual requests, which are located on subpages of this page.
Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated.
Requests for adminship and bureaucratshipupdate
RfA candidate S O N S % Status Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
Firefly 212 0 0 100 Open 15:33, 11 March 2022 2 days, 13 hours no report
Current time is 02:11, 9 March 2022 (UTC). — Purge this page
Requests for adminship and bureaucratshipupdate
RfA candidate S O N S % Status Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
Firefly 212 0 0 100 Open 15:33, 11 March 2022 2 days, 13 hours no report
Current time is 02:11, 9 March 2022 (UTC). — Purge this page
Shortcuts

Requests for adminship (RfA) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become administrators (also known as admins or sysops), who are users with access to additional technical features that aid in maintenance. Users can either submit their own requests for adminship (self-nomination) or may be nominated by other users. Please be familiar with the administrators' reading list, how-to guide, and guide to requests for adminship before submitting your request. Also, consider asking the community about your chances of passing an RfA.

This page also hosts requests for bureaucratship (RfB), where new bureaucrats are selected.

If you are new to participating in a request for adminship, or are not sure how to gauge the candidate, then kindly go through this mini guide for RfA voters before you participate.

About administrators

The additional features granted to administrators are considered to require a high level of trust from the community. While administrative actions are publicly logged and can be reverted by other administrators just as other edits can be, the actions of administrators involve features that can affect the entire site. Among other functions, administrators are responsible for blocking users from editing, controlling page protection, and deleting pages. However, they are not the final arbiters in content disputes and do not have special powers to decide on content matters, except to enforce the community consensus and the Arbitration Commitee rulings by protecting or deleting pages and applying sanctions to users.

About RfA

Recently closed RfAs and RfBs (update)
Candidate Type Result Date of close Tally
S O N %
Modussiccandi RfA Successful 1 Feb 2022 196 0 1 100
theleekycauldron RfA Withdrawn 29 Jan 2022 95 50 13 66
Ceradon 3 RfA WP:SNOW 5 Jan 2022 12 28 14 30
力 2 RfA Withdrawn 25 Dec 2021 34 35 6 49

The community grants administrator access to trusted users, so nominees should have been on Wikipedia long enough for people to determine whether they are trustworthy. Administrators are held to high standards of conduct because other editors often turn to them for help and advice, and because they have access to tools that can have a negative impact on users or content if carelessly applied.

Nomination standards

The only formal prerequisite for adminship is having an account on Wikipedia. However, editing the RfA page is limited to extended confirmed users, so editors without an extended confirmed account may have their RfA subpage transcluded by someone who is. This is due to the community deeming that editors without the requisite experience (500 edits and 30 days of experience) are generally unlikely to succeed at gaining adminship.[1] The community looks for a variety of factors in candidates and discussion can be intense. For examples of what the community is looking for, you could review some successful and some unsuccessful RfAs, or start an RfA candidate poll. If you are unsure about nominating yourself or another user for adminship, you may first wish to consult a few editors you respect to get an idea of what the community might think of your request. There is also a list of editors willing to consider nominating you. Editors interested in becoming administrators might explore adoption by a more experienced user to gain experience. They may also add themselves to Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls; a list of names and some additional information are automatically maintained at Wikipedia:List of administrator hopefuls. The RfA guide and the miniguide might be helpful, while Advice for RfA candidates will let you evaluate whether or not you are ready to be an admin.

Nominations

To nominate either yourself or another user for adminship, follow these instructions. If you wish to nominate someone else, check with them before making the nomination page. Nominations may only be added by the candidate or after the candidate has signed the acceptance of the nomination.

Notice of RfA

Some candidates display the {{RfX-notice}} on their userpages. Also, per community consensus, RfAs are to be advertised on MediaWiki:Watchlist-messages and Template:Centralized discussion. The watchlist notice will only be visible to you if your user interface language is set to (plain) en.

Expressing opinions

All Wikipedians—including those without an account or not logged in ("anons")—are welcome to comment and ask questions in an RfA but numerical (#) "votes" in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections may only be placed by editors while logged in to their account.
If you are relatively new to contributing to Wikipedia, or if you have not yet participated on many RfAs, please consider first reading "Advice for RfA voters". There is a limit of two questions per editor, with relevant follow-ups permitted. The two-question limit cannot be circumvented by asking questions that require multiple answers (e.g. asking the candidate what they would do in each of five scenarios). The candidate may respond to the comments of others. Certain comments may be discounted if there are suspicions of fraud; these may be the contributions of very new editors, sockpuppets, or meatpuppets. Please explain your opinion by including a short explanation of your reasoning. Your input (positive or negative) will carry more weight if supported by evidence. To add a comment, click the "Voice your opinion" link for the candidate. Always be respectful towards others in your comments. Constructive criticism will help the candidate make proper adjustments and possibly fare better in a future RfA attempt. However, bureaucrats have been authorized by the community to clerk at RfA, so they may appropriately deal with comments and/or !votes which they deem to be inappropriate. You may wish to review arguments to avoid in adminship discussions. Irrelevant questions may be removed or ignored, so please stay on topic. The RfA process attracts many Wikipedians and some may routinely oppose many or most requests; other editors routinely support many or most requests. Although the community currently endorses the right of every Wikipedian with an account to participate, one-sided approaches to RfA voting have been labeled as "trolling" by some. Before commenting, or responding to comments, in an RfA (especially Oppose comments with uncommon rationales or which feel like "baiting") consider whether others are likely to treat it as influential, and whether RfA is an appropriate forum for your point. Try hard not to fan the fire. Remember, the bureaucrats who close discussions have considerable experience and give more weight to constructive comments than unproductive ones.

Discussion, decision, and closing procedures

Most nominations will remain active for a minimum of seven days from the time the nomination is posted on this page, during which users give their opinions, ask questions, and make comments. This discussion process is not a vote (it is sometimes referred to as a !vote, using the computer science negation symbol). At the end of the discussion period, a bureaucrat will review the discussion to see whether there is a consensus for promotion. Consensus at RfA is not determined by surpassing a numerical threshold, but by the strength of rationales presented. In practice, most RfAs above 75% support pass. In December 2015 the community determined that in general, RfAs that finish between 65 and 75% support are subject to the discretion of bureaucrats (so, therefore, almost all RfAs below 65% will fail). However, a request for adminship is first and foremost a consensus-building process.[2] In calculating an RfA's percentage, only numbered Support and Oppose comments are considered. Neutral comments are ignored for calculating an RfA's percentage, but they (and other relevant information) are considered for determining consensus by the closing bureaucrat. In nominations where consensus is unclear, detailed explanations behind Support or Oppose comments will have more impact than positions with no explanations or simple comments such as "yep" and "no way".[3] A nomination may be closed as successful only by bureaucrats. In exceptional circumstances, bureaucrats may extend RfAs beyond seven days or restart the nomination to make consensus clearer. They may also close nominations early if success is unlikely and leaving the application open has no likely benefit, and the candidate may withdraw their application at any time for any reason. If uncontroversial, any user in good standing can close a request that has no chance of passing in accordance with WP:SNOW and/or WP:NOTNOW. Do not close any requests that you have taken part in, or those that have even a slim chance of passing, unless you are the candidate and you are withdrawing your application. In the case of vandalism, improper formatting, or a declined or withdrawn nomination, non-bureaucrats may also delist a nomination. A list of procedures to close an RfA may be found at WP:Bureaucrats. If your nomination fails, then please wait for a reasonable period of time before renominating yourself or accepting another nomination. Some candidates have tried again and succeeded within three months, but many editors prefer to wait considerably longer before reapplying.


Current nominations for adminship

Current time is 02:11:28, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Purge page cache if nominations have not updated.

Firefly

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (212/0/0); Scheduled to end 15:33, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Nomination

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

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]
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:
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:

Discussion

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

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

Support
  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! Face-tongue.svg -- 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]
Oppose
Bureaucrat note::non-oppose moved to #General comments below. Primefac (talk) 08:38, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
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]
General comments
  • @Blablubbs: Wot does that script do, and why—out of curiosity, more than anything—is the documentation page unavailable, do you think? SN54129 16:59, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Serial Number 54129 Not Blablubbs, obviously, but I've simply not gotten around to writing the documentation yet (oops!) - the script was written in response to my own personal frustrations with MediaWiki more than anything else. Namely, as MediaWiki doesn't show overlapping rangeblocks on contributions pages, (e.g. if an individual IP in a range is blocked along with a wider range, only the specific IP block is shown), I wrote a script to show the rangeblock. It also shows global locks in a similar format to blocks, rather than just a "this account is globally locked", as sometimes lock summaries contain useful information. I should definitely write the documentation and will do so now while I remember :) firefly ( t · c ) 17:09, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (Just noting that I've now written at least a basic summary for anyone interested) firefly ( t · c ) 17:15, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 Face-smile.svg</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]

About RfB

"WP:RFB" redirects here. For bot requests, see Wikipedia:Bot requests. For help with referencing, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners.
Shortcut

Requests for bureaucratship (RfB) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become bureaucrats. Bureaucrats can make other users administrators or bureaucrats, based on community decisions reached here, and remove administrator rights in limited circumstances. They also oversee local change usernames venues in conjunction with the team of global renamers and can grant or remove bot status on an account.

The process for bureaucrats is similar to that for adminship above; however the expectation for promotion to bureaucratship is significantly higher than for admin, requiring a clearer consensus. In general, the threshold for consensus is somewhere around 85%. Bureaucrats are expected to determine consensus in difficult cases and be ready to explain their decisions.

Create a new RfB page as you would for an RfA, and insert {{subst:RfB|User=Username|Description=Your description of the candidate. ~~~~}} into it, then answer the questions. New bureaucrats are recorded at Wikipedia:Successful bureaucratship candidacies. Failed nominations are at Wikipedia:Unsuccessful bureaucratship candidacies.

At minimum, study what is expected of a bureaucrat by reading discussions at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship including the recent archives, before seeking this position.

While canvassing for support is often viewed negatively by the community, some users find it helpful to place the neutrally worded {{RfX-notice|b}} on their userpages – this is generally not seen as canvassing. Like requests for adminship, requests for bureaucratship are advertised on the watchlist and on Template:Centralized discussion.

Please add new requests at the top of the section immediately below this line.

Current nominations for bureaucratship

There are no current nominations.

Related pages

Footnotes

  1. ^ Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship § Extended confirmed?
  2. ^ The community determined this in a May 2019 RfC.
  3. ^ Historically, there has not been the same obligation on supporters to explain their reasons for supporting (assumed to be "per nom" or a confirmation that the candidate is regarded as fully qualified) as there has been on opposers.


source: https://web.archive.org/web/20220228025955/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_bureaucratship

Leave a Reply