Misplaced Pages

:Requests for adminship/Elonka 3: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:21, 7 December 2007 editEVula (talk | contribs)39,066 editsm updating tally← Previous edit Revision as of 19:24, 7 December 2007 edit undoTqbf (talk | contribs)2,802 edits →Oppose: i'm not sure the edit war critique here is fairNext edit →
Line 153: Line 153:
#::Disagreement yes, conflict, no. Like I said, somebody's character is hard to assess through text and very dependent on the circumstances of the conversation. This is a discussion where we can politely disagree. ] (]) 01:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC) #::Disagreement yes, conflict, no. Like I said, somebody's character is hard to assess through text and very dependent on the circumstances of the conversation. This is a discussion where we can politely disagree. ] (]) 01:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
#:*For what it's worth, I've found the other editor at ] frustrating too. He's a strong date-warrior, and has a tendency to quote sources out of context, for points they do not support. ] <small>]</small> 05:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC) #:*For what it's worth, I've found the other editor at ] frustrating too. He's a strong date-warrior, and has a tendency to quote sources out of context, for points they do not support. ] <small>]</small> 05:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
#::* Data point, offered from a skeptic: I took the stiff drink recommended earlier, read the entire talk page (I now know that there were Franks and Mongols and that there may have been some alliance between them, thanks!), and it seems clear that the dispute here is between PHG and Elonka, not "a diversity of editors in general" and Elonka. Edit warring might not be a fair charge. I'm uncomfortable with how Elonka reads "consensus" there though; is "3-to-1 against in a pool of 4" really a trump card in a POV dispute? ] 19:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
#Sigh. '''Oppose'''. No indication that the problems that impeded her multiple past attempts to gain adminship have been addressed. The very acceptance of this nomination is rather tactless. Why should we all be spending time on failing Elonka's RfA every few months? --] 01:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC) #Sigh. '''Oppose'''. No indication that the problems that impeded her multiple past attempts to gain adminship have been addressed. The very acceptance of this nomination is rather tactless. Why should we all be spending time on failing Elonka's RfA every few months? --] 01:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
#:You know it isn't mandatory to come and vote here. '''<font color="red">]</font><font color="black">]</font><font color="blue">]</font>''' 01:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC) #:You know it isn't mandatory to come and vote here. '''<font color="red">]</font><font color="black">]</font><font color="blue">]</font>''' 01:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:24, 7 December 2007

Elonka

Voice your opinion (talk page) (67/6/3); Scheduled to end 00:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Elonka (talk · contribs) - Ladies and gentlemen, I now offer you my tenth candidate for adminship, Elonka.

To start with, this is Elonka’s third request for adminship. Her first request, which took place in October 2006, didn’t reach consensus, and ended at a final tally of 86/47/18; Elonka’s second nomination did not reach consensus either, but ended at a high tally of 158/72/5. That RfA happened in late-July of 2007, so there has been a good space of time between each of her nominations.

Elonka Dunin has been a contributor to Misplaced Pages ever since September 2005. Since the time she joined, she has amassed some 37,000 edits, over 26,000 of those being to the mainspace; 1459 to the Misplaced Pages-space, a healthy amount to images, categories, portals, and templates; and roughly 7100 to various talk page-types. However, while Elonka’s edit count is impressive, so are her editing and writing skills. Thanks to Elonka’s work and her wide range of interests, a large variety of articles have been expanded and improved by her. These range from pages such as Knights Templar, Dan Brown, Pauline Fowler, and Austin Miller, to other articles such as Shawar, Claude Beck, Damien Spinelli, Recueil des Historiens des Croisades, and Palestine Pilgrims' Text Society.

With her personality, I have observed that Elonka is good at remaining calm during rough situations, and she is always willing to discuss problems, as well as keeping civil at all times. At her last RfA, despite the stress that it generated, Elonka was polite and calm throughout the entire process, and was a good-sport at the end. She is also willing to listen to and take advice, and eager to reach out to newcomers to help them: these are more good qualities in my books.

Finally, Elonka has stated in the past that she likes the idea of the admin recall system, and plans to place herself in Category:Misplaced Pages administrators open to recall. She also has E-mail enabled, which is handy for users who need to contact her.

I do believe that Elonka being an administrator will be a major benefit to the project, and I am honored to nominate her. Acalamari 23:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


Co-nomination 1 from TimVickers

There are two requirements for a good administrator: experience and character. User:Elonka has been editing Misplaced Pages since September 2005; made large contributions to an eclectic mix of articles, such as Knights Templar, Dirty Dancing, and Dan Brown; and made over 26,000 mainspace edits – she is a highly experienced user who has a demonstrated an impressive commitment to the project. Her experience is unarguable.

However, character is harder to assess, and over her two years of contributions, Elonka, as she herself admits, has made some mistakes and stepped on some toes. However, looking over her contributions from the last six months I haven’t seen anything that causes me serious concern. She seems to have learned from her early mistakes and matured into a polite, hard-working and effective editor. I think Elonka will make a good administrator. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Co-nomination 2 from Alison

I am absolutely honoured and delighted to co-nominate Elonka for adminship. She's been here a long time now, has a vast amount of experience and has been a valuable and prolific contributor to the project. While I understand her previous two RfA attempts have had mixed results, so much has happened in the interim and so many of the original issues have been addressed and I believe she is now more than ready for adminship. She is patient and polite, highly knowledgeable regarding policy, shows kindness to others and is involved in diverse areas of WP. She is an asset to the project and I believe she will make an excellent administrator - Alison 00:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
Thank you for your faith in me. I humbly accept. --Elonka 00:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I'd like to help clearing various backlogs, such as at WP:PROD, and to help ensure quick responses at WP:RFP and CAT:PER. I will also help a bit with vandal fighting. It won't be my primary activity, but if I spot an obvious vandal attacking an article, it will be helpful to have the tools so that I can deal with the situation on the spot, rather than having to go poke someone else to do it. I would also like to participate more at WP:DRV, where admin access can be helpful in seeing deleted edits. --Elonka 23:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
2. What are your best contributions to Misplaced Pages, and why?
A: I love to write, and am particularly proud of the articles on the Knights Templar (on the Misplaced Pages main page on October 13, 2007), Dirty Dancing (the 1987 film), and Fustat (Egyptian capital). Lately I've been doing a lot of reading on the Crusades, as well as pre-Islamic history and rituals, so I've been using the knowledge thus gained to expand and improve many related Misplaced Pages articles, such as on Mecca, Black Stone, the Hajj, and Isra and Mi'raj. I've also been expanding many articles related to the Mongol Empire. And on a completely different subject, I helped rev up Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Soap Operas, such as improving the guidelines there to try and get a handle on the many many soap opera articles that are currently flowing in to Misplaced Pages. Towards this end, I've been helping a lot at the Pauline Fowler article, which will be at Featured status someday (soon I hope!) just made FA, and can then be used as an example that other soap character articles can emulate. --Elonka 23:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
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: Anyone with over 35,000 edits, is pretty much guaranteed to run into the occasional conflict.  :) I'd say in the vast majority of cases where I'm involved in a conflict, I'm one of the people who helps untangle things, towards finding a compromise that everyone can live with. In the occasional case though, I may find myself butting heads with someone where we just can't seem to figure out a way to communicate effectively. The most recent case of this happening is at the article Franco-Mongol alliance, where we're working our way through the various steps of Dispute Resolution. It's probably going to take months more of patient effort before we finally come to a respected community consensus, but I'm in it for the long haul.  :) My ultimate philosophy is to stay polite, try very hard to see the other person's point of view, and try to find a reasonable compromise that keeps things in adherence with Misplaced Pages's core policies such as WP:NPOV and WP:V. In terms of future conflicts, I like the way that we have noticeboards on certain issues, and think that this is a good way of addressing common problems. For my own part, I've been trying to help out at WP:RSN. --Elonka 23:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
4. How do you feel about Category:Wikipedian administrators open to recall?
A: Just as I've said in my previous RfA attempts, I completely support it, and will definitely add my own name to the category. I've liked the idea even before I started thinking about becoming an admin -- I think it's a classy way to handle things.
5. Since there is an article about you on Misplaced Pages, as well as other articles about members of your family, which you have edited, questions have been raised about your adherence to WP:COI and WP:AUTO. What is your response?
A: I did engage in some edits when I was a much newer editor, but as I became aware of the wiki-culture, this has definitively stopped. I no longer participate in the editing of articles about me or my immediate family members, and my last edit to any of those articles was well over a year ago, except for one case where I requested a speedy-deletion on an article about one of my cousins. I still feel that he's notable enough to meet WP:BIO, but that the article didn't yet have sufficient sourcing to make an exceptionally strong case. Since it put me in a bind where I couldn't edit the article (because I would be charged with COI), I simply requested that it be speedy-deleted. On another of my relatives, I agreed with deletion at the AfD, simply as a way to bring peace to the encyclopedia. There are none of my relatives that have to have articles here on Misplaced Pages – the information is already in multiple other places out on the web. If it's less disruptive to see articles about my relatives deleted, so be it. --Elonka 00:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
6. Re: Q4. Could you please indicate your standards for being recalled as an administrator? Just so there are no surprises later during this process. Thanks! Roadmr (t|c) 01:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
A: My standards will be pretty straightforward. If six editors in good standing post to my talkpage and ask me to step down, I will immediately resign my adminship. --Elonka 01:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
7. If somebody demanded that you provided them with a shrubbery, how would you respond? Tim Vickers (talk) 01:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
A: Well, assuming that they had a genuine need for a shrubbery, I would try to help them find one. A good one, that wasn't too expensive.  ;) --Elonka 01:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
8. Allow me to disclose something you said to me in email 4 months ago (8/1/2007): "I don't really care about the delete/block stuff, but I'll help out if needed.", which you said around the time of your last (2nd) RFA. Do you still feel this way about blocks and deletions? This is the stuff that admins do (blocking users specially which is not always an easy decision). Do you still feel this way about deletions and blocks, or do you plan to participate in this very common admin-related activity? --Matt57 02:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
A: I feel pretty much the same, yes. I don't want to be admin because I "want to delete" or "want to block". I do understand that admins are expected to help out with those activities, and I am fully willing to do that, but vandal-fighting is not a major motivator for me, as I've already done plenty of that in my own game communities. Don't get me wrong, I've definitely done some Recent Changes patrolling on Misplaced Pages (I've tried to participate in many different areas, to get a flavor for things), but it's never been one of my favorite tasks. Even with admin access, I fully intend to keep on with article-writing. The sysop bit will just help me to be even more effective, when I take a break to work on maintenance activities rather than article expansion. --Elonka 03:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
9. Since your account is associated with your real life identify, the biographies of living persons policy applies to others' comments about you. As an admin, how do you think this would affect your interactions with other users, if at all? (This question is completely optional.) Thanks, Gracenotes § 04:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
A: Actually, I don't really see WP:BLP as applying to me, the editor. I see the main gist of the policy as applying to the actual article, Elonka Dunin. Any other negative comments about me that happen in the normal course of Misplaced Pages communication on talkpages and whatnot, would typically fall under other normal NPA and Harassment policies. --Elonka 04:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
10 One of the concerns about you in the past has been speedying articles which did not clearly meet WP:CSD. Would you be willing to agree (as I think all admins should) either to tag an article for speedy deletion, or delete articles others have tagged, but not do both yourself? This might alleviate that concern. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
A: I would rather not agree with that. Every so often, I see an article that just has to go immediately, like I might be doing an RM move and need to delete a redirect, or I might be dealing with an attack page, or something that's listing someone's personal address/phone #. I once ran across a page like that, which was obviously posting personal information about a minor, and it was very frustrating for me that I couldn't just delete it on sight. All I could do was db-tag it, and put a big ALL CAPS message in the edit summary that it needed immediate deletion. However, what I can promise is that if I have any doubt whatsoever about whether or not an article might be a controversial speedy-deletion, I will make sure to get a second opinion. --Elonka 05:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
11. Hey, I was just reading opposition #5 - that would not appear to make sense instantly, but there is truth to it; What if Misplaced Pages loses its appeal because everytime you log in it feels like work and that you have to do it (contribute), rather than at your own free will as before, as it is with many hobbies that are taken on professionally? Those who register at internet forums and recieve a position on the staff board are known to display a decline in activity or lack of will, due to logging in becoming nothing short of an inconsequential chore in life. I guess the real question is, Are you sure? I have only just seen you and I think you are an impressive factor on Misplaced Pages (I mean, you don't seem too robotic, for one. You even have your own article!) --Dlae 14:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
A: It's a fair question, and I gave this a lot of thought. Especially in my position as a professional online community manager, I've spent a lot of time analyzing trends of online usage. For example, in MMO games, no matter cool they are, and no matter how passionate that a particular player is at the start, there's still a general burnout cycle. A typical MMO player will play a game for 6-18 months, and then they'll move on. But I have to emphasize the word "typical." Some people will play less, some will play more. Some move on from "playing" a game, to just the social aspects – the community becomes more important than the game. Some even play for decades (I know of multiple examples of generational participation, as some people play a game, meet and marry someone that also plays the game, then they have children, and when those children are old enough, they start playing the game). I think there are many Misplaced Pages editors who do see WP as a kind of game (see WP:MMORPG), and then when the novelty wears off and it's not as "fun," they move on. But to answer your question, no, I don't see Misplaced Pages as just some casual entertainment. I see it as an amazing and worthwhile project which will have impact, generations from now. And if it helps set your mind at ease, I've been a high-level sysop in my own game communities for going on 20 years, and haven't burned out. I've visited some other online communities on the web, and participated briefly and then moved on. With those, I was a tourist, not a settler. But for Misplaced Pages, by going for adminship, I'm making a commitment. I'm here for the long haul. :) --Elonka 18:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

General comments

RfAs for this user:

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Elonka before commenting.

Discussion

Support
  1. I strongly support this nomination, being the nominator. Finally, I am first to support a candidate that I've nominated. :) Acalamari 00:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Strong support. My support of this RfA will probably surprise no one as I nominated Elonka last time round. I was disappointed that it was unsuccessful as I believe Elonka has a lot to offer the Misplaced Pages community. She is a long term editor who despite some early mistakes and a lot of adversity has persevered in contributing here. She has contributed a wealth of high standard content in her time on the project. Elonka has also had interactions with a number of difficult users, with who she engages politely but firmly, and has been of great assistance on troublesome BLP articles including those where the subject has become angrily involved. I think it is regretable that editors who have been around for a long time and have become well known to the community sometimes suffer at RfA compared to newer editors who have had less time to rub people the wrong way. I cannot see Elonka becoming an administrator harming the project, on the contrary I think having this talented contributor with the extra tools will be of great benefit to us. Elonka has shown herself willing to learn from past mistakes, willing to hear the concerns of other users, and utterly committed to the project. She is in my opinion highly suited to adminship. WjBscribe 00:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. Co-nom Support - absolutely :) - Alison 00:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support. Excellent candidate. SlimVirgin 00:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support long overdue This is a Secret 00:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support. This editor has improved substantially since I opposed her first RfA. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 01:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support I supported last time and I see no reason to change this time. Captain panda 01:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  8. Strong support; she's a fine editor, and will be an excellent admininstrator :) Redrocketboy 01:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support a long time contributor, that has learned from past mistakes and has applied the feedback received in previous RFAs in a constructive manner. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support. I had reservations during Elonka's last RfA, as I was not familiar with her personally, and a lot of prominent editors were bringing up concerns. However, I have dealt personally with her in the months since - and have seen firsthand how much of a polite and friendly editor she is, and how she is willing to tackle difficult subjects with politeness and decorum. She's contributed reams of information to the project, and has always responded positively to constructive criticism. Elonka's work has been a boon to this project, and her dedication and judgment will be of great benefit to the administrative team. --krimpet⟲ 01:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support, it is high time to give this dedicated editor the mop. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 01:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  12. Strong support -- I wish I could find the diff ... I was trying to informally mediate between 2 normally good faith editors who had disagreed to the point of one of them inappropriately slapping a vandal tag on the other. I didn't get very far so I asked Elonka, who had edited some of the same articles, to see if she could help. She stepped in and graciously got them all straightened out. I won't say they were singing "Kumbaya" together when she was done, but it was pretty close. I was impressed by her diplomacy and peacemaking skills. --A. B. 01:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support as before. She could have started a new account and become an admin six months ago. Instead she took the honest way out. Let's not make honesty into something punishable. --JayHenry (talk) 02:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support as always. Elonka is beyond qualified to be an admin. - auburnpilot talk 03:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support It is time to give her the mop. --Siva1979 03:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support as always. Nick (talk) 03:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  17. Yes NHRHS2010 talk 03:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  18. Strong Support. An excellent candidate. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 03:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  19. Strong support She has excellent common sense with regards to decision making, and really works for articles and sources with regards to verifiability rather than allowing articles to be overrun by those who are excellent debaters that try and pass bad material and sources. Sometimes those who attempt this understand nothing but a firm hand after all attempts at talking things out. We really need an advocate like her as an admin to help in preserving honest scholarly work. Monsieurdl (talk) 03:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support. Great mainspace work. Jack?! 03:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  21. Strong Support - If you want to fail an RfA by just saying that nothing has changed since the prior RfA, then you are definitely not looking closely at the editors contributions..make sense of your opposes before opposing...since this candidate really deserves those extra couple of buttons...--Cometstyles 03:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support. It is a pleasure to work with Elonka. Her responses are accurate and eloquent, and she clearly knows the policies and can apply them with great prudence. — HelloAnnyong 03:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  23. Absolutely Great answers by Elonka above and excellent introductions by the Nominator & Co-noms, I find Elonka to be a bright, kind trustworthy editor, who I strongly believe wouldn't abuse adminship if given the tools.▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡ 04:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  24. Strong support. She's an editor with a wide breadth of interests and the ability to make bold decisions in difficult circumstances; I've been especially impressed with her recent patience with mentoring a difficult new editor. To add to what WjBscribe said above, it often appears that editors who "play it safe" get adminship relatively easily. This is not the case with Elonka, and I think that in her previous RFAs she has been unfairly marked down for past involvement in handling controversial topics and editors, where it's impossible to please everyone and very easy to make enemies who'll turn up at the RFA in sufficient numbers to poison it. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 04:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  25. This is an editor who stands out as among the most active editors on the project. And since her last RfA, after a quick glance of her contributions, it is obvious she has made great improvement. Strong support. Maser 04:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  26. I will give my support here. -- Anonymous Dissident 04:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  27. Support, slipping in unnoticed at number 27. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  28. support I have no fear that this editor will misuse the tools, and every confidence that giving her the tools will be a Very Good Thing for wikipedia. FWIW, I opposed her first RfA, don't seem to have expressed an opinion on her second. I've since interacted with her a bit via things like Stanley_Dunin AfD (where I disagree with her) and topics related to the Franco-Mongol alliance bruhaha (where I was & remain deeply impressed by her work and comportment). I give my strong & enthusiastic endorsement. Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  29. Support. I don't see any recent issues with civility, and overall she is eminently qualified and should make a fine admin. Crum375 (talk) 05:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  30. Per Alison. --DarkFalls 05:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  31. Strong Support This is almost a "She's not?". Answer to #10 is more thoughtful than the question. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  32. Seriously she isn't one already? ~Sasha Callahan (Talk) 05:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  33. I don't see any good reason not to, and I'm ready to trust WJBscribe and Alison on this. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  34. Support like last time. Húsönd 05:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  35. bibliomaniac15 05:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  36. Support a good candidate --Stephen 05:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  37. Support Good answers to questions. Master of Puppets 06:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  38. Support per nominators and her first rate work as an editor. PeaceNT (talk) 06:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  39. Another candidate that genuinely triggered the "weren't they already an admin" thought in my mind. Support. Spebi 06:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  40. Support She is a great contributor to wikipedia and personally i think she corrected all the problems from her first RFA in her second one itself. She should have got adminship at that time.--WriterListener (talk) 06:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  41. Support The more admins who are writers the better. That's what we're all here for. Nick mallory (talk) 07:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  42. Support; the answer to Q10 alone is sufficient to allay any concerns I might have had about her rocky past. — Coren  08:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC) Edited to clarify 08:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  43. The work looks fine and a number of the comments made seem pertinent to me. --Herby 08:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  44. Support per last time I've still nothing more to add that has not been said by the nom. or above. Pedro :  Chat  08:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  45. Strong support. @pple complain 09:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  46. Kusma (talk) 09:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  47. ➔ REDVEЯS likes kittens... and you 10:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  48. Absolutely without question. SQL 10:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  49. Yeah! — Rudget speak.work 10:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  50. This will be the first time I have given support to an admin candidate. This is a joyous occassion for all. —Preceding comment added by • (The Freudian Slip) 13:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  51. Support - Capable, and experienced. Modernist (talk) 14:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  52. At the last RfA I opposed this editor. However, I have reviewed her recent interactions with other users and now find no reason to oppose. I find her posts to talk pages to be kind, professional and firm. To date, most of the opposes and neutrals are expressing soft opposition or weak neutrality which suggests that much has improved. There is little downside to this nomination so I am happy to support. - JodyB talk 15:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  53. Support—Oh well, if Tim Vickers has co-nominated, the candidate must be good. But why does she want to become a (clerical) worker ant if she can write? With a few notable exceptions, WPians contribute either as good editors/writers/intellectuals or as mop-and-bucket people. PS Hint: Don't respond to the opposes. Tony (talk) 15:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  54. I think Elonka's been ready for this role for quite a long time. She is courteous and pleasant both on and off-wiki, through thick and thin. She's certainly been around long enough to "get it", she cares genuinely about the project, and - well, really, no concerns here. Absolutely delighted to see this one going nicely, it's about time. ~ Riana ⁂ 15:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  55. Support - good user. If even Matt57 is not opposing for her conduct, I don't see why anyone else should. Will 15:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  56. Support Elonka has responded to criticism and demonstrated her integrity. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 15:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  57. Support. Competence, experience and willingness to do the work are a good combination. --Bradeos Graphon (talk) 16:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  58. Agree that the issues raised in the last RfA have been addressed and cleared. She won't misuse the tools and that's all that matters. I dorftrottel I talk I 16:11, December 7, 2007
  59. Support Good editor Mbisanz (talk) 16:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  60. Absolutely. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 16:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  61. Strong, Strong Support - Once again, I'm astounded that Elonka hasn't been made an administrator yet. The arguments for opposing her RfAs are, in my opinion, trivial at best. She is a pleasure! SergeantBolt (talk) 17:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  62. Support Lots of the issues brought up in previous RfA's I don't see today. She is cordial and works through the process. spryde | talk 17:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  63. Support. Committed and talented editor. A review of her answers and contributions does not raise any red flags for me. Seems to me that she's taken the criticism from previous RfAs to heart.--Kubigula (talk) 17:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  64. Support - Gee, I thought you were an admin already. Thoroughly trustworthy. Jeffpw (talk) 17:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  65. Support - on balance, I think this would be a net gain for the project. Elonka demonstrates self-possession, and I think she is aware that her use of tools will be scrutinized, so she is unlikely to use them in a controversial way. Please be careful and conservative. - Jehochman 17:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  66. Support Good answers, good contributions, all my interations have been positive. Mr.Z-man 18:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  67. Support. I still think Elonka is too eager to be an admin. However, unlike her last RfA, I don't see as much heated discussion and the votes are stacked pretty high on one side of the fence; so perhaps she's worked out most of the issues that surfaced on the last 2 RfAs, and the community is no longer so divided re: her being an admin. Certainly my perusal of her interactions and contributions didn't turn up any red flags. Besides, and also quite unlike last time, she's open to recall without any reservations (and Elonka, I'll hold you to your promise there). So this time I'm supporting her. Best of lucks! Roadmr (t|c) 18:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Weak oppose with regrets as I do realise this oppose is going to put me in disagreement with a number of those editors I genuinely respect. While I don't run across Elonka that often — we work in entirely different areas — every encounter I have ever had with her has left me with a nasty taste in my mouth, and a read through her contribution history does nothing to dispel the impression. Quite aside from possibly the most out-of-touch-with-policy comment I've ever seen from an established editor back in July (discussed ad nauseam in her last RFA) she seems to be the embodiment of what I think is wrong with a certain clique of editors: an obsession with "enforcing policy", despite an apparently hazy conception of what policy actually is (while it's been four months now, I still have fond memories of this rather surreal conversation); a general impression that the correct way to resolve disputes is to nit-pick and wikilawyer against anyone who doesn't agree with her until they give up out of boredom; and a repeated history of making very dubious allegations of incivility against anyone who doesn't agree with her. Couple this with her semi-permanent edit-warring (she appears to still be edit-warring as busily as ever at Franco-Mongol alliance — take a deep breath and have a stiff drink before you attempt to wade through the mess of the talkpage — although to her credit, in her answer to Q3 she has at least finally recognised that maybe she might not always be right), and her WP:IDONTLIKEIT approach to speedy deletion tagging, and you have someone I wouldn't trust with deletion buttons; not so much because she might delete things that shouldn't be deleted (we've all done that), but because I don't believe she'd ever admit she might have made a mistake and restore the content she'd deleted. All that said, given her nominators, I am willing to be convinced that she's improved; and I'd also like to take the opportunity to say that I don't agree with much of the criticism she received last time. — iridescent 00:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
    Disagreement yes, conflict, no. Like I said, somebody's character is hard to assess through text and very dependent on the circumstances of the conversation. This is a discussion where we can politely disagree. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Data point, offered from a skeptic: I took the stiff drink recommended earlier, read the entire talk page (I now know that there were Franks and Mongols and that there may have been some alliance between them, thanks!), and it seems clear that the dispute here is between PHG and Elonka, not "a diversity of editors in general" and Elonka. Edit warring might not be a fair charge. I'm uncomfortable with how Elonka reads "consensus" there though; is "3-to-1 against in a pool of 4" really a trump card in a POV dispute? --- tqbf 19:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Sigh. Oppose. No indication that the problems that impeded her multiple past attempts to gain adminship have been addressed. The very acceptance of this nomination is rather tactless. Why should we all be spending time on failing Elonka's RfA every few months? --Irpen 01:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
    You know it isn't mandatory to come and vote here. Redrocketboy 01:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
    Perhaps I did not make myself clear, sorry. Of course we may skip nominations. The issue is the nominations of the candidates who are viewed by the community as unfit to possess buttons. I think if editors have reasons to believe this being the case, they should come and vote. And they did. And not once. So, what changed? --Irpen 01:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
    I don't know, but I'll leave it at that, as arguing won't achieve anything I don't think. Thanks. Redrocketboy 01:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
    Maybe she changed? "viewed by the community as unfit to possess buttons" - If you haven't noticed, most of the community found her fit for the tools. --DarkFalls 05:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. Still not comfortable with her having the tools, sorry. DS (talk) 03:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Difficult one, but no. Too soon since the last one (4 months) and the round rejection at that point suggested the community wasn't quite willing to wear this. Some of Geogre's comments in the first neutral strike right to some of the issues I have with the candidate. There has however been improvements since attempt #2 and there haven't been any drastic flareups, and purely personally (not considering the adminship criteria) I almost felt like supporting this one because of the campaign against her by Matt57 and others. However the key issues are questions like - can they get on with others? do their actions suggest problems down the track? do they understand policy, can they understand the reasons behind the policies (often key to ensuring the spirit and not strictly the letter is enforced) and can they pick good edits from bad ones? I can't answer all of these "yes" to any degree of satisfaction, apart from the last one. Orderinchaos 03:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
    I'm sorry but the support of 158 people amounting to 69% of participants is not a "round rejection". And general consensus is that 3 or 4 months is a perfectly appropriate time between nominations. WjBscribe 03:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose per my reasoning in Elonka's last RFA. I think Elonka is a good and valuable editor who shouldn't be an administrator. AKAF (talk) 09:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  6. I object. As also evidenced in the previous RFA, Elonka has a history of dealing with disputes poorly. As seen in the various requests for mediation, comment, and arbitration she been subject to or participant in, she has at various times dealt with content disputes by (a) finding every single bit of "dirt" she could find on her opponent(s), and using that to disparage them (for instance here) and (b) misquoting people, or quoting people out of context, to make it seem they support her position when in fact they did nothing of the sort. Having shown this behavior in multiple unrelated instances, including after the last RFA, makes it clear to me that she is not suitable as an administrator. >Radiant< 16:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Neutral
  1. Subject to movement, but it's character that's the hang. What I see in common with the few administrators who have caused the most trouble in the past is pride. I don't mean that in the garden variety, all have sinned, way, but the "I am important, bow before me, as I bow before my masters" way. Two administrators I can think of have consistently assured all and sundry that they are the very heart of Misplaced Pages, that everyone depends upon them, that "thousands look to me every day for opinions," that they are integral to ArbCom ongoing investigations, and the like. While these people have contributed well, they have also proven to be immovable dams in the edit flow, and when they have used the block button, all Hell has broken loose. We have just reburied Hell from the last time this happened. If a person isn't actually humble, administration is not right for her or him. If a person is actively self-promoting, I have to oppose outright. I know, and I fully agree, that this means that a user like Elonka who has been here for a long time and contributed widely and stepped into some of the bigger... piles, as it were... on Misplaced Pages gets more scrutiny than the shoal of little users passing RFA with 30 total votes, but I can't do anything about that. If I do have reservations about someone's character, I can't support. It is absolutely nothing personal, nothing against Elonka or her extraordinary contributions, but I'm quite serious about Cincinnatus being our model administrator. Geogre (talk) 01:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Geogre, thanks for taking the time to post, and for what it's worth, I really do hear you. I've seen the problems that have been caused in this community by those who have misused power. I'm not sure what I can do to reassure you that my intentions are sincere. There's really no chance of me suddenly going rogue with admin powers. I mean, look at it this way: I'm already a professional online community manager. It's been a full time career of mine, for almost 20 years now. I have managed communities larger than those on Misplaced Pages, and have had much, much more power than anything I might get by a simple admin bit on the MediaWiki software here. I'm not working hard on Misplaced Pages because I want to "get" status. I already have status (yeah, I know, that doesn't sound humble, but it's true). On Maslow's hierarchy of needs, my status need is already pretty well met. I'm here on Misplaced Pages not for "power", but for the creativity side. I love to write, I love to organize large amounts of information into understandable structures, and I really like it here and want to help. Do you really think it's possible that someone could have over 34,000 edits if they didn't genuinely love the place?  :) --Elonka 01:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
    • YesNote this, not to put words into someone else's mouth. --- tqbf 01:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Please, please. Let's have light rather than heat. No one should be doubting anyone's love for the project. Heck, I even think some of the people at the BADSITES act like estranged lovers more than actual opponents of Misplaced Pages (and, of course, as long as they do, they make it impossible for there to be a reconciliation). Let's avoid cheap shots. Uster:tqbf, would you consider doing a strike through? Geogre (talk) 10:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
    That comment by --- tqbf was totally out of line. You should know better than to violate WP:CIVIL, especially here. Monsieurdl (talk) 13:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
    Sorry, Elonka, I didn't mean that to come off as snarky as it did. You're clearly a committed editor. But the point of that link stands. No, Geogre. Live by the casually dropped edit count, die by the casually dropped edit count. Note that I'm not an oppose. --- tqbf 13:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
    I understand. Though I would point out that even in that link, of when I was using AWB to assist with a massive categorization project in Fall 2006, I wasn't using automated bots. Every single one of those edits, I did eyeball before clicking "Save page". As I recall, I had a major setup going on, where I was running about 8 different versions of AWB at once. It didn't support tabbed browsing, so I had different instances spread out in different windows on two monitors, all working on different parts of the Special:Uncategorizedpages list (since each instance of AWB has a couple second delay as it pulls up a page). That way I could get through the list faster than using just one version, where it would be "click" "wait" "click" "wait", I had all the different versions processing at the same time. Mostly I was just checking that {{uncat}} was appropriate and clicking "save", or I was updating my regex string to improve filtering.  ;) And every so often when I saw an article go by that was a more urgent problem than just categorization, I'd pipe it to a separate window where I could take a closer look at it, like to check if it needed vandalism reverted or something. In summary, I got through many thousands of pages in a short period of time, but there was still a human in the loop on every single one of them.  :) --Elonka 19:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
    Thanks. Didn't mean to imply the link was damning (though I definitely managed to convey that); this was, however, a point brought up in a previous Elonka RfA. It's also a specific argument addressed in "Arguments to avoid in RfA", and that link is case-in-point: of the ~28000 mainspace edits you have, that link alone attributes ~15% of them to AWB. You brought it up. For what it's worth: (a) I apologize for the tactless wording I used, (b) I reiterate that even after you strip the AWB stuff out, you're a more dedicated content editor than many of the successful RfAs from the past 3 months, and (c) I recuse myself from the vote (but not from running off my mouth). --- tqbf 19:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. I simply do not trust Elonka with admin tools based on my own past experiences. But in fairness, I do not have any recent interactions with Elonka, so I'm willing to see what other people have to say before commenting further. -- Ned Scott 01:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Considering our past history, Ned, I guess I can understand your reticence. So, for what it's worth, thanks at least for considering neutrality. I appreciate the fact that you're keeping an open mind, and, as I've said before, I really do hope that we can figure out a way to put disagreements behind us. I would like very much if we could learn better ways to work together on this project that we are both obviously very passionate about. That much at least, we definitely have in common.  :) --Elonka 02:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. Hmm... I need to sleep on this one. Dustihowe (talk) 19:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
    If you have any specific questions, please don't hesitate to ask, and I'll do my best to answer.  :) --Elonka 19:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)