Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Firefly

Humor opposes
(Moving from the question to prevent off-topic) Why sometimes people make questions in the oppose section as humor in RfA? But I think humor makes the RfA less stressful. Thingofme (talk) 15:07, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I have never seen someone ask a question in the Oppose section without actually opposing the nominee. Humour is perfectly acceptable at an RFA, but clearly there are some people who do not find it humorous to give an oppose vote when it is not actually an oppose. Primefac (talk) 15:19, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * RfA is already extremely stressful for candidates, and a lot of (good) people failed because of many things. The opposers also see everything about the candidate, about where they edited, and other things. Pile-on opposes are game-changing, and only a (reasonable oppose) may bring a pile of oppose for this RfA. Thingofme (talk) 15:27, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Who cares if there are "some people who do not find it humorous"? If we didn't tell jokes unless everyone found them funny, we'd never tell a joke. Levivich 16:13, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

It was 1 gazillion to not-even-really-one. If this temporary non-oppose oppose actually stressed Firefly out, he wouldn’t be qualified. No, really, literally, I mean that. Whether he thought it funny or not is immaterial, but if it caused him stress? Get ready, man, being an admin can be a few orders of magnitude more stressful than that. Luckily, I can be confident it didn’t stress Firefly out, because ... it was 1 gazillion to not-even-really-one, and also because he seems competent and intelligent and clueful. I’m slightly disappointed he chose to follow the standard "ignore it" protocol that all candidates religiously follow - to the point where I only support adminship 108% instead of the 110% I had before - but in this lunatic environment, he probably would have picked up an oppose for "not taking the sacred RfA process seriously enough" if he’d said anything, so I understand even though I’m a little saddened. We can now safely resume the joyless, unsullied triumph, already in progress. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:26, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Yep, humor is more often negative than positive on noticeboards rfas, etc. Now then, I'd like to propose we continue to discuss this for at least 100k bytes of text, over at least 7 days on at least four different pages. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 18:58, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * if it goes longer than 6 days, Firefly could be the one to block me for disruptive editing. —Floquenbeam (talk) 19:28, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Humor in RfAs is rare and is often usually misunderstood. I miss User:Mkativerata, who occasionally used to put an "oppose" vote in the "support" section of an RfA, with a rationale such as "Oppose: Should have run for rfa earlier given obvious aptitude for the job." Somebody would always miss the joke and move it to the oppose section, and then somebody else would move it back with an explanation. Personally I felt very flattered when Mkat did in my RfA, back in 2015. (Vote # 53 in the “support” section, if you care.) -- MelanieN (talk) 05:57, 6 March 2022 (UTC)