Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Fluffernutter

< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Zalgo (talk | contribs) at 17:55, 13 August 2011 (MOAR RAINBOWS!). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Fluffernutter

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (58/0/0); Scheduled to end 16:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Nomination

Fluffernutter (talk · contribs) – Ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to introduce Fluffernutter, formerly known as Chaoticfluffy, for your consideration as an administrator. Her record in her few years here is a user who has grown, and whose abilities and knowledge of policy have developed over the years. I first ran into her in the early part of this year, and I have seen her work, on-wiki, and as an OTRS agent, where I have seen her handle BLP subject's communications with a deft touch. Her content work is good, with two GA's, one she essentially rebuilt foundationally, one that she created. She has become adept at the unseen work around here, anti-vandalism, gnoming away small mistakes that creep into so many articles in ref formatting, keeping an eye on incoming spam and potential BLP issues. After watching her work for a few months, giving advice and guidance where I can, I'm confident she can be trusted with access to the sysop's tool kit. I hope you'll agree. Courcelles 03:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this nomination, and hope the community will see fit to allow me to start swabbing the decks. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:58, 12 August 2011 (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. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I am, and probably always will be, a gnome at heart. I enjoy those small tasks that have to get done but don't get done with any fanfare, and I enjoy being able to work on the sidelines providing support that keeps things spinning along smoothly. As a function of this, if I become an admin you'll probably find me working in the trenches on WP:AIV and Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests, as well as cleaning up redirects left after the file moves I and others do for areas like Wikipedia:Database reports/Largely duplicative file names. I would also expect to use my tools in the course of my OTRS work, which would call for occasional revision deleting, page protection, and blockings of problematic users.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I am, unsurprisingly, quite proud of my two GAs, Kaycee Nicole (re-written from the ground up) and Beefsteak (banquet) (which I created). However, I also take quite a bit of pride in my more gnomish tasks, such as the work I do in keeping Category:Pages with missing references list under control and the pages I've pulled from Special:longpages and split into more manageable articles.
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 don't tend to be a conflict-prone person, but no one can operate on Wikipedia for any length of time without finding themselves in the middle of conflict whether they like it or not. The two events that stick out in my mind with regard to conflict are the recent kerfuffle on Talk:Harold Covington, in which I disagreed with another user's decision to blank most of a BLP, even portions which I believed to be sourced and neutrally-phrased; and the time I was accused of sockpuppetry. The latter is, I will say, the closest I've ever come to losing my cool on Wikipedia, but I think I managed to maintain my calm. In general, my strategy toward conflict is to state my case as clearly as I can and then back away while the other person tries to do the same; I believe that disengaging, at least for a while, is often the best solution to anything that has people's backs up, because in the heat of the moment positions become entrenched and any hope of compromise or understanding becomes minimized.
Additional question from Keepscases
4. Wikipedia implements a feature in which every time you make an edit, you face a 1 in 10,000 chance of exploding. This only applies to you, and no one else will ever know about it. How often do you edit Wikipedia going forward?
A: Well, given how hard the Foundation is working to retain editors, that would certainly be an unfortunate feature to implement, and I'd probably start an RfC on the issue, and then bump it up to the Foundation/developers if the community failed to reach a consensus. On the other hand, at least my choice would only hurt me. Even so, however, as much as I love Wikipedia, I do tend to love being alive more, so I would unfortunately have to stop editing and find a new pastime if such a feature (though surely it's better labelled a "bug" if it kills people!) were implemented and my appeals landed on deaf ears.
Additional question from jorgenev
5. How does the notability guideline serve the five pillars of Wikipedia?
A: Our notability standard really feeds into multiple pillars. The first pillar, that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, means that we're not a soapbox or an advertising venue, and we're not an indiscriminate collection of information. Including a topic which isn't notable would weaken this pillar, leaving us as a collection of not-necessarily-notable-or-important information, not an encyclopedia. In addition, the second pillar calls for Wikipedia to be neutral. Neutrality in the context of an encyclopedia calls for third-party sources on which to base our coverage; without reliable sourcing available to verify information, we cannot be assured of neutrality, and the concept of notability is important as a feeder into verifiability, because a topic that's non-notable is likely to be extremely difficult to verify. A topic which isn't notable isn't likely to be verifiable, and any coverage we give to a topic which isn't verifiable cannot be relied upon to be neutral.
5.1 Do you think that WP:NOT#NEWS serves the five pillars?
A: Wikipedia is not a newspaper, the first pillar tells us that. We don't exist to report on the wide range of one-off topics that newspapers and news agencies often cover, because many such events would fail our notability guidelines. Reporting news events may also run afoul of the second pillar, in that breaking news is often difficult to represent neutrally due to the piecemeal fashion in which it comes out.
Additional question from NickDupree
6. A bot evidently becomes sentient and starts destroying key page(s) in a wanton rampage. However, the page(s) depend on said bot to continue updating and functioning, putting you between a rock and a hard place. How would you resolve this apparent Catch 22?
A: Gosh darn it, I told Watson not to go on that blind date with Wintermute! "Nothing good will come of hooking your circuits up with her," I said, but noooo, these young AIs never listen!

In a slightly more serious vein, though, rogue sentient bots would surely be a problem, but as far as admin powers could help, the only real thing to do here would be to block the bot (assuming there was no emergency stop button, or that the button didn't work). If the bot's destroying, then it's not updating the page(s), nor keeping them functioning, and there's no loss to the encyclopedia by stopping the destruction, especially if we can then dispatch some community troops to clean up the mess and/or do what the bot should have been doing. Block the bot, make sure it doesn't have access to the essential systems of my house or to killer robots from the future, and set about cleaning up the mess.

Additional, optional questions from Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry
7a. Will you be available for Administrator recall?
A: I feel very strongly that administrators, like any editors, should be accountable for their actions and should be governed by our policies and guidelines. That said, I'm also aware that "administrator recall" is a politically loaded term, with factions both supporting and opposing it. In looking over the processes and criteria for current open-to-recall admins, it seems to me that "recall", as a category, has become extremely legalistic, with admins doing their best to design procedures that prevent gaming or retribution by angry editors. It's a valid call to make, because yes, admins make enemies, but I think my feeling is that it's an excessively complex way to go about things when we have a perfectly good RfC system that could do the same thing. Rather than calling myself "open to recall", I would be more comfortable saying that if an RfC is ever put forth and closed by an uninvolved admin with the consensus that I have a pattern of misusing my admin tools, I will resign them, and that should such an RfC close with such a conclusion and I fail to resign my tools, the community would be within its rights to ask Arbcom to remove them.
Thankyou. That's a good answer, and smooths over the worries I had.
7b. For the purposes of this question, assume you have a conflict of interest with subject X. If you spot something problematic in that subject - for example, a disruptive user - and you feel that an administrative action should be taken, where would you go for assistance? Possible examples would be IRC, ANI, a friendly administrator, a completely uninvolved administrator, the article talk page... etc. All of these are appropriate places, I'm just interested in where you'd go first.
A:The proper answer to this question depends quite a lot on what, exactly, the situation is, with regard to the type of conflict of interest I have (is it an article associated with my job, where good hygiene is to stay clear but I don't feel passionate? is it an article in which I've been involved in disputes? is it an article that's ideologically important to me?), the type of misbehavior I observe (a user adding "PENIS!" would get very different treatment than, say, someone subtly POV pushing), and the urgency of the situation (has someone violated the BLP policy on a contentious article, such that not acting immediately would be legally dangerous, or is it just someone who wants to change the facts in a paragraph and is arguing loudly on the talk about it?).

Those things said, I'll try to give you a general answer based on what you've said. In an area where I have a COI, where I observe problematic conduct that is not an emergency, my first inclination would be to judge whether interacting with the user in question on their talk or the article talk would be useful. Is it possible that a gentle warning, or just some calm engagement and discussion, can help the issue? I feel I would be safely within the bounds of COI to do these things, disclosing my COI to the editor if it was potentially relevant. If my feeling was that one-on-one interaction with me would not be helpful, or if the behavior was immediately disruptive, or if my COI was such that it would not be proper for me to engage on the relevant issue, the next step would be to get further administrator input. As you say, there are a number of venues available for this, but in a case where my handling of the issue could be viewed as problematic due to a COI, the proper step would be to be as transparent as possible and either contact, on-wiki, an uninvolved administrator whom I knew to be neutral with regard to both me and the issue at hand (if I still felt that it was an issue that could be resolved by someone working with the user in question), or post to ANI (if the issue was large, highly problematic, or a hot-topic).

General comments

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

Discussion

Support
  1. Support Shows hard work and dedication to the community (OTRS volunteering, attending Wikimania, being an IRC op), great content work, would absolutely trust Fluffernutter with the tools. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Obviously. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 16:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support No reason to think they'll misuse the tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Keepscases (talk) 16:38, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Her résumé speaks for itself. Although the nom from Courcelles certainly doesn't hurt. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 17:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Most definitely! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Strong support - (Default for OTRS agents. ;] ) Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support - I see no problems. James500 (talk) 17:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Suppport Happily. /Julle (talk) 17:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support - Fluffernutters are tasty sandwiches. And Fluffernutter would make a great admin. Her experience is very diverse, she has great content contributions, fantastic communication skills, and I've seen her make reasoned policy decisions in noticeboard discussions. -- Atama頭 17:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Enthusiastic Support Not only is Fluffernutter the best gnome I've personally seen on Wikipedia, she has a rare knack for breaking down Special:LongPages into more manageable daughter articles, and has been a (much needed) calming voice of sanity in the en.wikipedia IRC channel for years. I couldn't think of a more qualified candidate for adminship than Fluffernutter! —NickDupree (talk) 17:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. Very well-qualified. Good luck!--EdwardZhao (talk) 17:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support No concerns Jebus989✰ 17:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support - Everything looks good to me. The UtahraptorTalk/Contribs 17:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support as nom. Courcelles 17:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Why not? -FASTILY (TALK) 17:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Strong support - Having known Fluff for several months now, mostly off-wiki, I am confident that she will make a fine administrator. I trust her with a lot of my own personal information, as she is someone I feel comfortable confiding in about personal matters, so I have no doubt she can be trusted with both the tools and sensitive information (also shown by OTRS access) that comes with adminship. Also, she invested a great amount of money and time to travel from the US to Israel for Wikimania (for which she was a speaker), which indicates to me how seriously she views the project and her work within it. Lara 18:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Puffin Let's talk! 18:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support - Fully qualified. Swarm u | t 18:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support: I can think of no one more qualified for the tools. Topher385 (talk) 18:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support per my observation of work at OTRS and per a short review of randomly selected contributions. I'm sure that both within and outside of OTRS requests, she will make constructive use of the tools. --joe deckertalk to me 19:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Strong support no brainer. PumpkinSky talk 19:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Strong support - An excellent candidate for a mop. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 20:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. Hey! You forgot to tell me you were up for Admin! Harumph. Well, I'm crashing your party anyway to support.   – Quadell (talk) 20:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    lol, I'm sorry, I've been so het up about just getting my feet under me on this that I forgot to send up the bat signal! A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support sure. ThemFromSpace 20:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support in January, Fluffernutter helped resolve a slightly heated (if extremely minor) conflict at St. Bernard (dog); the assistance was hugely helpful, and looking through the last several months of contributions this seems to be a pattern. Wholehearted support. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Om nom nom delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 22:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  28. About bloody time! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. Fluffernutter has my support here, and I apologise for any problems my question may have caused. In hindsight, it was inappropriate, although I meant no harm from it. The Cavalry (Message me) 23:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Absolutely, get a new mop ready.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:53, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Sure, happy to support. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 00:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  32. How could anyone not support? Pile on support   Egg Centric 00:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support well-rounded, well-qualified--Hokeman (talk) 00:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  34. support in no wat dimmed by any query from my fellow tool...er Arb Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support. Ironholds (talk) 00:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Fluffernutter is one of those editors who quietly goes about making the encyclopedia better; we can never have too many admins of that variety. From what I've seen of her participation at AfD and other forums, and her excellent copyediting, she'll continue being a gentle voice of reason as a sysop. Best of luck. sonia♫ 00:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Yes please! From my limited IRC interactions with Fluffernutter and the work I've seen, there's no reason for me to oppose! —James (Talk • Contribs) • 10:19am • 00:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  38. This may be the only time when my comment includes the words "thought she was an admin already". I have had the pleasure of meeting her in person and discussing wiki-issues, and she has been as sensible off-line as she is on-wiki. Risker (talk) 00:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support Overdue causa sui (talk) 00:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support. I've looked into her contributions and haven't found any reason to deny admin rights to this helpful, constructive editor. Majoreditor (talk) 00:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support Wikipedia needs less shock-troops and more shepherds. --MoonLichen (talk) 01:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
  42. Support. I've met her several times in person, and she's a damn fine editor. Well spoken, articulate, and passionate about Wikipedia. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 03:55, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support All interactions in the past have been very good; no reason to oppose. Skier Dude (talk) 04:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  44. I <3 flufflernutters! (And fluffernutter the user, of course.) /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Well suited for this role. Townlake (talk) 05:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support a good all-rounder. Minima© (talk) 07:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support Why not? --Bsadowski1 09:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support No problems here. (I do like peanut butter and jam sandwiches, but we don't seem to have marshmallow creme over here so I can't sample a fluffermutter...) Peridon (talk) 11:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Rainbow Support Gυяℓ ηєє∂ѕ ѕσмє αωєѕσмє яαιηвσω ѕυρρσят..., ѕσ ι gανє нєя α
    Rainbow Support
    !! --Zalgo (talk) 13:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Of course, intelligent, reasonable, able to remain calm in heated situations, knows her way around the 'pedia...I can only wonder why she never ran for adminship sooner! OohBunnies!Not just any bunnies... 13:34, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support. Without hesitation. My main reasons may be somewhat different from other people's, in that I don;t particularly indulge in edit-counting, or numbers of GA's, FA's, and so on. We need all sorts, and we need trustworthy allsorts, and the allsorts working in lower-profile areas need mops for those areas, too. I particularly like the way FLuffernutter interacts with others; not afraid to tell it how it is, but in an inherently clueful, reasoned, rational and non-confrontational kind of way. When I stalk contribs (watch out, y'all - I admitted to being a stalker!) I focus on people's interactions with each other. It helps me know them better. I've yet to see anything in this background which would give me any distrust in Fluffernutter's ability to wield the mop. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 13:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support, of course. No concerns here, simply why not? DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 14:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support Thank you for the fine volunteer work that you are currently doing and for volunteering to take up the admin tools and do more. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 14:34, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Extremely strong support I vowed not to take part in an RfA again, but when I saw Fluffernutter was having one I had to come and show my support. Fluffernutter is kind, helpful, intelligent, mature, all the qualities required for adminship, and I'd be astonished if anyone opposed. --123Ħeðŋeħøŋ456 : Create an account!! 15:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Strong support Sorry for the late support Fluffy. You'd make an excellent Admin. Theo10011 (talk) 15:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support: Fluffernutter has a perfect understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Joe Chill (talk) 15:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support — No concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 15:13, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support I was concerned that the stats on this RfA's talk page showed so few pages extensively edited, and the Whoopi Goldberg edits seemed all to be reverts and two minor moves. However, the user page displays some serious content contributions. Why don't they appear on the page stats? Good editor with good content contributions.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:50, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably because I preview a lot in my big edits, so a whole article copyedit or rewrite would tend to show up as 1-3 edits, while vandalism reversion is one edit at a time that adds up over years. Stupid good-watchlist-hygiene, minimizing mah stats! A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose


Neutral


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Fluffernutter&oldid=444663735"