Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Firefly

Firefly

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (20/0/0); 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)

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 of 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)

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.

Discussion

• Links for Firefly: Firefly (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · 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)
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)
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)
4. As co-nom. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:38, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
5. Immediate Support. It's about time! Panini! • 🥪 15:40, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
6. Support Per DanCherek. Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(Talk) (Contributions)} 15:40, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
7. Great contributor. 0 red flags Firefly is indeed a gem. Celestina007 (talk) 15:42, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
8. Fully endorse, they pass the requirements with flying colors. ––FormalDude talk 15:44, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
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)
10. Without a doubt. [Placeholder for when I have time to write something longer]. -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 15:54, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
11. No issues Megan B.... ^{It’s all coming to me} till the end of time 15:56, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
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)
13. I see no issue. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 16:02, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
14. Support Already done my research, no issues. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:03, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
15. Support - an excellent individual, and would be an excellent admin Nosebagbear (talk) 16:06, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
16. Epicgenius (talk) 16:10, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
17. Support Had great experiences with him. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 16:11, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
18. Support Strong mixture of content-creation and admin background. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:14, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
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)
20. Support I recognise the name, but essentially in line with MelanieN. Happy days ~ Lindsay^Hello 16:18, 4 March 2022 (UTC)