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

Fluffernutter[edit]

Final (152/0/0); ended 16:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC) ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 16:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination[edit]

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[edit]

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).

I'm not sure I follow this altogether. Do you have a conflict of interest regarding penises? Bishonen | talk 23:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Please, don't project on this RFA candidate. Lara 00:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Sp33dyphil
8. May I ask, of all the nicknames, why did you choose a sandwich?
A: I have fond childhood memories of fluffernutter sandwiches in my bagged lunches at school. Fluffernutters were always way better to find in there than, say, PB&J or egg salad! It's perhaps a bit strange to name myself after a sandwich, but probably no stranger than the stories many people have behind their nicks :)
Additional question from Wifione ....... Leave a message
9. I appreciate you have gained experience in gnomish work. Yet, I should wish to understand your response to the following situations. Assume you are the administrator responsible for closing the following discussions/nominations. Comment on how you will handle each closure.
9a. An AfD of a BLP, which has been relisted twice, has found no comments or !votes. How will you close it once 21 days have passed post the initial nomination?
A: The answer to this depends, to some extent, on the reason the article was listed at AfD. Our BLP policy does allow for summary deletions (which is what the decision to delete an article whose AfD had not reached a consensus to delete could be viewed as), but only in cases where the article is problematic on BLP grounds. An article which was proposed as essentially an attack page, as being sourced entirely to non-reliable sources where this cannot be easily remedied, or an article which had privacy issues would be within administrator discretion to summarily delete; an article that was proposed for reading spammily would not. The former, I would be correct to close as a delete; the latter would be more apppopriately closed as no consensus.
9b. Ten days post a BLP being prodded, the only source added has been a clearly unreliable primary source. How will you close this BLP Prod?
A: This is actually an easy call. Our BLPPROD policy states that a BLPROD is sticky unless and until the article has had a reliable source added to it backing up at least one of the statements made about the LP in the article. If the source added is patently unreliable, as you say, and/or a primary source (which WP:BLPSPS tells us is not acceptable as the sole basis for a BLP), as you also say, then the PROD has not been deactivated by the addition of the source, and I would delete at the end of ten days as usual.
9c. An administrator, who has relisted an AfD twice, closes the AfD himself/herself. What part of our CoI guideline might this closure contravene, if it does at all?
A: The call of whether or not relisting an AfD constitutes a COI falls mostly under WP:INVOLVED, which allows for actions taken "purely in an administrative role, or [an administrator] whose prior involvement are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias." I would argue that the relisting of an AfD is a purely administrative action, and a minor one at that, and thus the administrator who relisted an AfD would have no reason to not also be the administrator who closed the AfD.
Additional questions from LikeLakers2
10a. Do you think that Jimbo Wales should get a yearly 1 minute/1 second block? Why/Why not?
A:
10b. Can I be sure I can trust you with administrator powers? Or will I be forced to ((trout)) you without prior warning?
A:
10c. Jimbo Wales goes apeshit crazy without warning and bans Legobot. What do you do?
A:
10d. Are you planning on taking over the world? If so, explain why.
A:
Additional questions from Albacore
11 Explain how you would verify that an IP is an open proxy since you plan on working in AIV.
A Well, I know how to dig up instructions for this sort of thing (in this case, I quickly found this page, which gives a pretty good outline of the process), and I could quote them back to you, but frankly server/IP tech is not my area, and I wouldn’t be the one I’d want to see handling such a thing if it came up. I would probably gather some evidence that the editing patterns are odd - is it a mix of blatant vandalism and non-vandalism, are the edits coming in at uneven times, does it seem to be vandalizing within disparate topic areas, are there multiple IPs that appear to be "tag-teaming" an article with similar vandalism? - block the IP temporarily if it’s continuing to vandalize, and then find another user, perhaps via WP:OP, who I knew to be technically-inclined and pass that information off to them to investigate and/or act on.
Additional very required question from Pilif12p
12 How many fluffernutters will you eat if you pass in this RfA? Pilif12p 21:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC) [reply]
A
Additional questions from Joe Chill
13: In what cases would you block editors as vandalism only accounts?
A: A vandalism-only account is, in a pleasantly circular fashion, an account that's used only for vandalism. A vandalism only account (as distinct from a vandal IP, which is not locked into a particular person, is likely to change, and thus can't really be labelled "vandalism-only") should be blocked indefinitely when it becomes clear that they have no intention of contributing constructively. This could be after the full four warnings, if there seems to be some hope of redemption, or it could be after as few as one or two edits, if the vandalism is egregious.
14: Do you think that there are some situations where editors can be called stupid or told to f off? Like if the other editor is edit warring or posting on someone's talk page when they were told not too?
A: No, there is never any circumstance in which it's acceptable to call another editor stupid or tell them to 'f off'. We are a collegial environment, and interactions here should be in good faith and without ad hominem attacks.
15: What is your opinion on IPs being allowed to edit?
A: I think IP editing should be allowed. Despite the amount of IP vandalism we get, we get just as much, if not more, constructive content from IPs, and at a time where we're trying to maintain our numbers, putting up barriers to entry like "you must register to fix this typo" is a problematic approach.
Additional question from Σ
16. You mentioned that you would like to work with protected edit requests. A 2 month old request to a highly visible template has gained much support and no opposition in for not editing it. Nobody other than the user who proposed the edit understands the mass of parser functions and magic words he wishes to add, though the user claims that adding the code will do no harm. No other admin is willing to edit the page, so what do you do?
A:

General comments[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  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]
  59. Support An extremely skilled editor, apply to deal with difficult editing problems, and will find good use for the tools. Should also be an exceptionally good aeven-handed and sensible administrator. I, like several of the others above, know her in person, and, like them, it only adds to the strength of my recommendation. The more things she is able to do at Wikipedia, the better the encyclopedia will be. In fact, I've mentioned her work as an example of how much can be done here, in trying to recruit and encourage new editors. DGG ( talk ) 21:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support a sense of humour, a couple of GAs and good communication skills are a plus. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support Seems well equipped...Modernist (talk) 23:49, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support. If Courcelles supports then I support. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:10, 14 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  63. Yes. ~Red Rover (Talk to me!) contribs 02:49, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support Bejinhan talks 02:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support Yes, please. I've seen her around a good bit on IRC, and her contributions are very good. Additionally, the sense of humor will probably work to her favor; it's good to be able to approach things with a humorous attitude. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:47, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support – Deserves for admin chair. — Bill william comptonTalk 03:56, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Thought you were already a sandwich...I mean an administrator. In all seriousness, great editor and will make a fine sysops. Calmer Waters 04:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Hired. Have fun with your new mop! Thanks for reviewing articles for creation, by the way. It's a thankless task. — CharlieEchoTango 07:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support - TBloemink (talk) 09:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support SNOWFIGHT!!!--Cerejota (talk) 09:10, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support without hesitation. In my capacity as an administrator and volunteer, not as an employee action. - Philippe 11:26, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  72. This seems to be of the "Duh!" variety. Give her a mop and the t-shirt already! StrikerforceTalk Review me! 11:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Fluffernutter is great, though in disclaimer I've hung out with her a bit so maybe I'm biased... :-) James F. (talk) 12:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  74. I think the number of people making jovial comments in their supporting - the vast majority of those in this section, I would wager - is a testament to her accessibility and her friendliness. Also quite telling is the lack of opposes thus far. Fluffernutter, to use an American cliché, covers all the bases here; by being both obviously competent and willing to work in challenging domains and, at the same time, retaining a lighthearted sense of humour in her work, she will undoubtedly be able to stem disputes, judge and explain her perception of consensus in certain scenarios, and, most importantly, not go stark raving insane when it comes to the less glamorous aspects of mop-wielding. I should also note the financial expense she has suffered for the project - her journey to Wikimania was, to my knowledge, done purely from her own pocket. If that is not a serious commitment to this project, I do not know what is. All the best. — Joseph Fox 13:37, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  75. I am not at all sure that it is good for a candidate to be completely unopposed, but I can see nothing that warrants anything other than support. Bah, humbug etc. Ben MacDui 14:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Don't see why not. –BuickCenturyDriver 15:10, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support - I had the pleasure of watching Fluffernutter present at Wikimania. She has the sort of judgment I like seeing in administrators. hare j 15:12, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support - Sensible editor. Giving her the admin tools will be a net positive to the project.--Sodabottle (talk) 16:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support Has my full support as someone with brains and common sense and will easily be a net gain for the community if she has the mop. Therefore meets the most important requirements to be an admin and should get it. James of UR (talk) 16:28, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support, clueful enough! PeterSymonds (talk) 17:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support - Definitely. smithers - talk 19:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support. Excellent answers to questions, clearly very intelligent, clearly an ideal temperament, clearly dedicated to the project, clearly an ideal candidate. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:35, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support Has no issues. WayneSlam 22:59, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support. Good contributions. Sensible. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support, an excellent candidate. --Taelus (talk) 23:06, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  86. I have nothing but good impressions of her and her work. LadyofShalott 00:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Strong support. Well-qualified candidate, well-rounded experience, good answers to questions, no concerns. (Plus she beat me at Wiki-Jeopardy at the last year's New York wikiconference.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support A name associated only with positive things here. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Wifione ....... Leave a message 04:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Strong support Level-headed, experienced, and would be a great asset to the community. SMasters (talk) 04:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support - Adequate tenure, clean block log, no indications of assholery. Carrite (talk) 05:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Strong Support I'm still very new here, so I've mainly interacted with Fluffernutter on IRC, and while that "doesn't count" for the purposes of this vote, it has shown me a person echoed in the many comments of support here. Fluffster is an excellent channel op; she's skilled at cooling down potential conflicts and has a good sense of humor while avoiding snark and personal disdain. What has strongly impressed me on-wiki is her handling of the Harold Covington controversy. Here is a true BLP bucket of snakes: a clearly notable subject who has threatened legal action against Wikipedia. An editor stubs his page. Instead of merely trying to soothe the arguing parties (worthy enough in itself), Fluffster takes the more difficult step of carefully vetting all the sources point-by-point, while saving a re-write/revert for an editor at a later date to let the issue cool off. This shows someone willing to do the difficult, behind the scenes tasks, someone who leads with careful work instead of a desire to amp the drama or vindicate an opinion about a page's notability. Wikipedia couldn't do better. Snardbafulator (talk) 08:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support - an excellent candidate and good answers above - give the lady a mop! Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere! (Whisper...) 08:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support - Excellent.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 10:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support - Excellent contributions to the project. Deserves to be an admin -- Marek.69 talk 10:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support bumped into this fine lady a few times, especially on IRC, and always found her knowledgable and good humoured. Besides the fact I've never eaten Marshmallow fluff, let alone a fluffernutter, I am confident that a support vote here is the right one. (And who am I to complain about odd names, eh?) WormTT · (talk) 12:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support - Mato (talk) 12:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support Cbrown1023 talk 15:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support, has a good head on shoulders. And without that username, I'd never have known what a fluffernutter was. Not to mention anyone who has a doppelgänger account in IPA must be a good choice. WP:100! Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support - Has never yet deleted the Main Page, and is unlikely to do so in future.--Pharos (talk) 16:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support: All contributions have improved Wikipedia in some way and any problems dealt with in a calm and careful manner. There is absolutely no reason not to give Fluffernutter the remaining tools to make this easier. --Mrmatiko (talk) 17:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  103. As long as I can eat her later. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support No reason why not. Monty845 18:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support I've known this user for a long time, and all our interactions have been positive (even when our opinion has differed). I see nothing that concerns me in contribs, and I liked the answers to questions above. Fluffernutter, this RfA looks like a ringing endorsement; please be cautious with your new tools, and please continue being kind and friendly, especially to new users, as I know you have thus far. Best,  Chzz  ►  18:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support What can I say? The woman knows that a Fluffernutter is a sandwich, that's qualification enough for me! Atomician (talk) 19:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support Fantastic member of the community, no issues supporting this! - Rich(MTCD)T|C|E-Mail 20:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support Yup. —SW— chat 20:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support. Sure, no concerns here. - JuneGloom Talk 21:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support I'm not sure why I'm supporting a sandwich for adminship, but... (just kidding, Fluffernutter is awesome and will be a great admin) Logan Talk Contributions 22:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  111. About time. Blurpeace 22:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Support Always nice to have friends with power tools. Also per my philosophy that if someone can be trusted with OTRS access they can be trusted with pretty much any other rights we've got. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Support A number of your supporters make me a touch hesitant, but your record looks good so I won't hold it against you.--Cube lurker (talk) 22:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Let's go ahead and crush this user's soul under the burden of adminship. DS (talk) 22:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Yah! <3 Pilif12p 22:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Strong Support – An excellent candidate. She would do well with the tools. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 00:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Support. Outstanding candidate. – Athaenara ✉ 00:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Support. I have seen nothing but fine work from this editor. May this RfA go down unanimously unopposed! -- Ϫ 01:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Superman Strong Support. I know Chaotic Butterfly Flutternutter on IRC, and she is a very nice person. I would not be suprised if she created a page with a vandalism1 warning, while simultaneously also offering a plate of WikiCookies to that vandal, as a welcoming present. LikeLakers2 (talk) 03:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Support. No concerns at all. Eeekster (talk) 03:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Support I have nothing but good things to say about this user. Worked with them for years and always a pleasure to work with. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Support. See no reason to think Fluffernutter will abuse the tools. Jayjg (talk) 05:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Support. Looks good! Enti342 MEMO 05:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Support -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 14:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Support; competent, hardworking, and can be trusted with the tools. bobrayner (talk) 20:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Support Consistently demonstrates responsible virtues, good content, named after a sammich.  IShadowed  ✰  00:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Support. Sure! --KFP (contact | edits) 00:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Support - no concerns here.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 01:29, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  129. One of the best candidates I have seen. --Guerillero | My Talk 02:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  130. I have looked for every reason in the wiki world to oppose this candidate (because I am bitter) and all I can find are reasons to support. My76Strat (talk) 02:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Secret account 04:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Support Worse disagreement I've had with her was that she hated veggies, while I loved meat. If that's the worse I have on someone... Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Support I knew Fluffernutter is a friendly person but wasn't familiar with her contributions until I did the research for this RfA, including a comprehensive review of her talk page contributions. My conclusions: She is consistently diplomatic, invites feedback from others, provides good thorough feedback, and admits mistakes. She has civilly handled discussions about recentism and WP:SPOILER. She has enormous patience with newbies, and keeps cool in the face of personal attacks and unhelpful feedback. She is skilled at finding reliable sources. She occasionally makes errors and gets frustrated, but that just shows she's human. I have only minor disagreements (e.g. she's more conservative with BLP than I am, and I'd like to make sure she's familiar with Wikipedia:Link rot). Dcoetzee 05:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Derrick, this is an exceptionally well-researched comment, and it reflects well on you, and it also reflects well on on Fluffernutter. Thank you for doing the work. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment On the last matter (link rot), I've worked closely with Fluffernutter and wrote a custom AWB module to help her do reflist fixing quicker and easier. The link Dcoetzee provided was from 2008, and I can point out that Fluffernutter has been working on WikiGnome tasks related to reflists and footnotes and is more than competent to understand link rot and other issues to do with referencing. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Yes, this is exactly the kind of stuff I was referring to in my support up above! I've seen so much of this excellent style of interaction ... but of course Dcoetzee has put in the effort to provide all the nice links :o) Ta, Derrick! Beautifully illustrated. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 02:37, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Why not? -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 09:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Support I haven't had any interaction with Fluffernutter before so I was waiting to !vote on this one. The links pointed out by Dcoetzee really show that Fluffernutter is a perfect candidate for adminship. Plus, I'm hungry. Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Support Looked around at this users edits and could not find a reason not to.—Theda 22:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Support Did a great GA review, for example: Talk:Willamette River/GA1. Jsayre64 (talk) 04:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Support' With the unanimous support from the community, I'll make an absolute fool of myself if I do otherwise. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 07:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Super strong support Thought you we're already an admin! --Aude (talk) 16:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  140. Support er Pharos. Agathoclea (talk) 19:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Support — I like sandwiches. Master&Expert (Talk) 22:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  142. Support meets my admin requirements (I've heard of them and I believe them to be at least vaguely sensible).©Geni 22:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  143. Support No opposition for 6 days. I'll keep the support going.--1966batfan (talk) 23:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  144. Support wholeheartedly. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 23:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  145. Support mabdul 00:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  146. Support- Rationale of opposes to date is unconvincing. Dru of Id (talk) 05:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  147. Support per deCoetzee and a hundred and something others. Great nom, great answers. --John (talk) 06:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  148. Thoroughly impressed with your track record. I'm not particularly fond of tags on a good article, but since the article's obscure, I guess it's understandable. ceranthor 07:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  149. Support From the diffs that Dcoetzee has so kindly provided, and from the answers to the questions posed, I believe that Fluffernutter would make an excellent admin. I am more than willing to add my support. Thistheman 07:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  150. Absolutely not...obviously evading the world domination question. I give an F. Epic Fail.--This user supports world domination...and sandwiches 09:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  151. Support Damn you, peer pressure! Honestly though, looks like a good candidate and will serve the community well. Plus, you know, "OMG, a girl running for adminship!!!!!" Regards SoWhy 10:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  152. Support. Most definitely. Cind.amuse (Cindy) 15:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]


Neutral[edit]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category