Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:38, 11 December 2007

Elonka

Voice your opinion (talk page) (139/41/4); 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)

Precision: Mediator Tariqabjotu actually closed down Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Franco-Mongol alliance on December 4th (2 days before Elonka wrote the answer above). The reason given for closure was: "Decision of the mediator that further discussion was improbable of producing result." PHG (talk) 20:21, 11 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)

10.1 Would it be correct to assume that any page tagged (by you) for speedy deletion is one that you yourself would have deleted if you had (at the time) the ability to do so? If there are exceptions, please explain them. Thanks. — CharlotteWebb 19:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

A: Partially correct. There have indeed been cases when I tagged an article that, if I would have had tools, I would have deleted on sight (see my answer above). However, in other cases I have tagged articles that I felt "probably" should be deleted, but I still welcomed the second opinion. And in those cases, even if I would have had tools, I probably still would have requested the second opinion before deleting. If you have questions about any article in particular, please feel free to bring it up, and I'll try to elaborate on my thought processes at the time to let you know which it was. --Elonka 22:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

In cases where there is a reasonable doubt and you aren't comfortable deleting it yourself, wouldn't it be more appropriate to tag it with something other than "speedy delete"? There are some unpleasant truths at play here. Admins can and do delete things without actually reading them. Sometimes the backlogs are heavy and they'd much rather take your word for it if they recognize your user-name, unaware of your lack of certainty in a particular case, even if you do express it. Yes, it can and will be argued that a case like this would somebody else's error and not your own, that some tired arm threw a series of hog-wild pitches but the batters kept swinging. Yeah, yeah, everyone loves a cute sports metaphor but maybe this one should be abandoned because (read my lips) WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME TEAM. I hope. Deleted content tends to be totally forgotten about more often than not, and yes I know somebody will say it's no big deal and anything worth a damn will be re-posted soon enough, but then again, maybe it won't. Either way, "out of sight, out of mind" is a poisonous attitude for a collaborative project. — CharlotteWebb 21:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

There are many other ways to suggest something for deletion, and I can definitely use {{prod}} or {{afd}} tags instead of a speedy tag. I didn't mean to imply that speedy-deletion is the only way to raise a question about an article. See also my answer to #15 in my previous RfA. My answer above, was just in relation to speedy-deletions, and not the various other flavors. --Elonka 21:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

10.2 Deleting redirects to make way for an article move are non-controverisal enough that I've never seen the need for outside oversight. For some of the other cases you cite such as personal information posted or attack pages, would you agree to at least put a notice out on WP:ANB, or one of the related boards, so that other admins have the opportunity to double check the action? There are cases all the time of admin actions being undone upon review, and the original actioner calling for that review looks much, much better than if a third party makes the request. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 12:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

A: With all due respect, I think that would be excessive. Misplaced Pages is a busy place, and many thousands of things get deleted each day. When an admin is in full swing, they're deleting things right and left. It's just not practical to post about every single one at WP:ANB. Anyone that does want to see what I'm deleting can definitely review my deletion log. You can check any active administrator's logs, and see that this is something that they may do multiple times per day. I can't promise that I'm going to notify on every deletion, but I do promise that if I feel that something is a particularly controversial deletion, I will get a second opinion and/or post about it at the Noticeboard. And if anyone has questions about anything I have deleted, they are of course welcome to ask me directly about it, or take it to WP:DRV. --Elonka 20:05, 11 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)

12. I'm curious as to which part of the WP:MOSDAB guideline suggests (or, did suggest) that we remove mention of Nitrogen from N , Macy's (and its infamous one-letter stock exchange symbol) and the McDonald's logo from M , and Phosphorus from P . I realize the editorial matter itself isn't directly related to admin tasks, but the ability to interpret policies and guidelines in a reasonable way (regardless of what they actually say at any given time) is important. — CharlotteWebb 19:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

A: Sure, happy to talk about it. I've been helping out quite a bit at Category:Disambiguation pages in need of cleanup. Those Letter disambiguation pages had been proving especially tough, and I saw that many other folks were avoiding them, so I decided to roll up my sleeves and be bold and dig in. What the ultimate goal is on those pages, is that they are to be used strictly for navigation purposes, and they are not meant as dictionary entries or search indices. See Misplaced Pages:Disambiguation#Lists, which says, Only add links to articles that could use essentially the same title as the disambiguated term. In other words, how likely is it that someone would link M when they actually meant something else? That's the main purpose of a disambig page. So, in my opinion, it's possible that someone might link M-class star when they meant Class M star, so it's appropriate for stellar classifications to be on the disambig page. But, how likely is it that someone is going to link N when they really mean Nitrogen? or M when they really meant to type McDonald's, or Macy's? In my judgment, that's unlikely, which is why I think that those links should be deleted from a disambig page. Now, there are a lot of articles on Misplaced Pages, so if I'm wrong, and someone feels strongly that those situations are proper disambig terms, to prevent confusion in some context that I'm not familiar with, then by all means, please re-add the entries. :) --Elonka 23:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe this is a moral dilemma, but I'd argue that material in article space exists primarily to serve readers, not editors, not disambiguation bots.I realize most of us take it for granted that a big yellow "M" on a blue background means a McDonald's restaurant can be found at the next exit, or that Nitrogen puts the "N" in "NH₃", but to some audiences these things aren't obvious, and I don't see anybody removing "Mercury" from "Hg". Whether a sane person would "accidentally" link to it in the manner you described is a moot question. — CharlotteWebb 21:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

13. The issue of Misplaced Pages is not censored, part of the "What Misplaced Pages is not" official policy has been brought up, it looks as you had made a good faith effort to suggest a compromise to the heated issue at the time. I'm not going to ask you to debate this issue but rather ask you in general, how do you feel about this policy? ▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡ 06:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

A: I of course support the policy, and agree with the concept that we are here to provide an information source, which may occasionally result in providing information which some users might find offensive. However, I don't see WP:CENSOR as a trump card that overrides good judgment. I still feel that reasonable determinations can be made on the relevance of particular material, especially as how it relates to other of Misplaced Pages's policies, such as WP:UNDUE. So I fully support the concept of editors involved with a subject, engaging in good faith discussions towards finding a compromise position on the inclusion, exclusion, or modification of images for that article. In the specific case that you're talking about, at Talk:Kaaba, it was, and still is, a very controversial issue on whether or not to include an image of Muhammad, at the article about Islam's holiest shrine, the Kaaba. Though the image is one that seems completely innocuous to Western eyes, to many Muslims – even moderate and open-minded Muslims – it's extremely shocking and offensive. It is jarring to them to go to an article about the holiest place in Islam, and see something that they find profane. I felt that it was worthwhile trying to seek a compromise on the issue, under the principle that though the image does add information to the article, it's not an essential image to that particular topic, and may be giving undue weight to a story about its history. I still support linking to the Commons and other articles where the image is more appropriate, but at Kaaba, I weigh the balance of providing the information, against that of the fact that the image is starkly in opposition to the traditions around that particular subject. In the July 2007 discussion, I offered multiple compromises, but multiple other editors disagreed and said that they felt that the image was appropriate, so I opted to bow to the consensus, as a way of bringing the issue to a resolution. If the situation is re-opened for community discussion in the future, I will handle it the same way, offering my opinions, listening to other editors, suggesting possible compromises, and ultimately, doing my best to acknowledge and support the consensus of the good faith editors at that time. --Elonka 21:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

14. relating to both question 13 above and my comment in the neutral section, as well as to some things brought up in the oppose section. Some policies in Misplaced Pages, for example WP:NFCC, are opposed and discussed every day. Other policies (let's see - WP:THREAT) go virtually unopposed, at least in spirit, for months. Until now, I counted the censorship policy in the latter category. Which parts of Misplaced Pages that are considered such "holy cows" would you most like to change? User:Krator (t c) 23:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

A: The main point on that, I think, will be how I might interpret policies as an administrator. I have participated in policy discussions in the past, and will continue to participate in the future, but it really doesn't matter if I'm an admin or not, as to which discussions I'm involved in. As an admin, I do understand and accept that my job will be to enforce Misplaced Pages policies as they exist, regardless of whether or not I happen to agree with them. --Elonka 23:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

15. Have you used, or do you currently use any alternate accounts to edit Misplaced Pages? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

A. After the failure of my first RfA, and some other more senior Wikipedians advised me that some of my opposers were going to have long memories and never support me, I toyed with the idea of creating an alternate identity and starting fresh, and anonymously. But ultimately I decided that it wasn't me. I'm "Elonka" pretty much everywhere else that matters, and for better or worse, I was going to stay "Elonka" here on Misplaced Pages too. I never used any alternate accounts in a way contrary to what's allowed by policy (I kept everything extremely separate in activities from my "Elonka" account), but the idea of establishing a separate identity just didn't sit well with me, and I stopped. Since that point (about a year ago), I have not used any alternate accounts whatsoever. I'm just Elonka. :) --Elonka 07:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

16. Hi Elonka. It seems like a lot of the concern below in the opposes is over articles about you and your family, and the possible COI there as an admin. Would you be willing to address that by stating some sort of vow here that you will never edit those articles again (besides Talk page comments), barring commenting on a !vote on an AfD, or that sort of thing? It might go a long way to helping calm people. If you were willing to be bold, maybe you would agree to be bound to a compulsory recall RFA if you used your admin tools in regards to these articles on your family or yourself in any way, with a condition that is you tried to "opt out" of that recall clause you could be summarily desysopped with your approval ahead of time. Just a thought; I don't see any reason at all for anyone to oppose you if you committed to something like that. I will be putting down a support now, but am still curious what you think of this idea. Thanks! Lawrence Cohen 16:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

A: I have not engaged in the editing of the Elonka Dunin article, nor articles about my immediate family, for over a year now. I have no intention of editing them, nor of using admin tools on them, at any point in the future. --Elonka 20:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

General comments

• See Elonka's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Requests for adminship/Elonka
• Requests for adminship/Elonka 2
• Requests for adminship/Elonka 3

• Links for Elonka: Elonka (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

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

Discussion

• Consensus not numbers: this is a good, experienced editor who has shown great flexibility in her attempts to resolve disputes that others consider almost intractable. If she wants the bit, she should have it. --Tony Sidaway 08:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

    I will give my support here. -- Anonymous Dissident 04:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

    switched to oppose. -- Anonymous Dissident 06:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

26. Support, slipping in unnoticed at number 27. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
27. 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)
28. 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)
29. Per Alison. --D_arkF_alls 05:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
30. 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)
31. Seriously she isn't one already? ~Sasha Callahan _(Talk) 05:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
32. 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)
33. Support like last time. Húsönd 05:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
34. bibliomaniac15 05:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
35. Support a good candidate --Stephen 05:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
36. Support Good answers to questions. Master of Puppets 06:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
37. Support per nominators and her first rate work as an editor. PeaceNT (talk) 06:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
38. Another candidate that genuinely triggered the "weren't they already an admin" thought in my mind. Support. Spebi 06:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
39. 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)
40. 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)
41. 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)
42. The work looks fine and a number of the comments made seem pertinent to me. --Herby 08:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
43. 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)
44. Strong support. @pple complain 09:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
45. Kusma (talk) 09:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
46. ➔ REDVEЯS likes kittens... and you 10:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
47. Absolutely without question. SQL 10:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
48. Yeah! — Rudget _speak.work 10:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
49. 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)
50. Support - Capable, and experienced. Modernist (talk) 14:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
51. 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)
52. 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)
53. 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)
54. 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)

    Sorry, had to wait a bit before putting my thoughts in (not that my oppose will make a difference anyway), although it looks like she will get through. We can only hope that she uses the extra tools for good use, although I'm certain she wont. --Matt57 21:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

55. Support Elonka has responded to criticism and demonstrated her integrity. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 15:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
56. Support. Competence, experience and willingness to do the work are a good combination. --Bradeos Graphon (talk) 16:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
57. 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
58. Support Good editor Mbisanz (talk) 16:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
59. Absolutely. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 16:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
60. 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)
61. 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)
62. 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)
63. Support - Gee, I thought you were an admin already. Thoroughly trustworthy. Jeffpw (talk) 17:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
64. 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)
65. Support Good answers, good contributions, all my interations have been positive. Mr.Z-man 18:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
66. 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)
67. Support. I think Elonka should be an admin. I pretty much know when a regular user should become a sysop or bureacrat.--~Barkjon- talk 19:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
68. Support. I have run into Elonka on a number of articles and believe she would be a good administrator. I know that she has been willing to step into stressful article debates where people are editing against policy, and try to sort things out. My only advice would be that not all battles need to be fought to the end; sometimes you just have to put in your two cents' worth and let events take their course. EdJohnston (talk) 20:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
69. Support.Biophys (talk) 20:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
70. Support -Yamanbaiia (talk) 20:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
71. Support. Elonka is obviously committed to the project; she has addressed the concerns people expressed on previous RFAs and improved. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
72. Support Excellent, experienced and professional user. --MoRsE (talk) 21:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
73. Support. It's at times like these where we have to ask, are Wikipedians truly able to forgive and forget for past grievances, or will they be like elephants and hold grudges and punish forever? I know I won't; hopefully everyone else will feel the same. Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 22:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
74. Support I met Elonka thanks to her talk about WP at Dragon Con 2007, and if I have a complex question about policy or procedure, chances are she'll have an insightful answer. I am absolutely certain that Elonka will not abuse the tools, and I know that she loves WP just as much as anyone here, even if it doesn't love her back. —Disavian (/_contribs) 22:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
75. Support Sneaking in as an insignificant number 70-something. I'd watchlisted the most likely page for her next RFA, as she seems to me to have the "stuff" to be an admin...more so than even some of the admins I know...so I've been waiting to weigh in. I actually had never interacted with her until after her two previous RFAs, and didn't realize that she wasn't an admin until it came up in conversation. She just exudes the knowledge and authority of an admin (which shouldn't be mistaken for arrogance or entitlement, as some might seem to imply or infer). LaMenta3 (talk) 22:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
76. Support Kwsn (Ni!) 22:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
77. Like the last RfA, I don't see any reason to think that Elonka won't be a help to us all with the extra buttons. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
78. Support: I voted against Elonka in two of the previous RfA's, but I am switching to support here. Any concerns I may have had have been removed, and I believe she would be a capable admin, able to stand her ground firmly against people who do not have the best interests of the encyclopedia at heart. Good luck. Danny (talk) 22:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
79. Strong support. I thought she was clearly ready for adminship the last time, and I can't imagine anything has changed for the worse since then. Grandmasterka 22:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
80. Support: experienced and has learned a lot in her time here. Would be a valuable admin. David D. (Talk) 23:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
81. Support - not insane, a credit to Misplaced Pages in public and will do just fine - David Gerard (talk) 23:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
82. Extreme passive-aggressive salamander support, to the max, Quebec style. And that's all that needs to be said. Philwelch (talk) 23:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
83. Support Will do good.--Sunderland06 00:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
84. Support. This time will do fine. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 00:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
85. Support. An obviously hard-working, dedicated editor. Being an admin is no big deal, so why make it a big deal? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)--Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
86. Obvious support—great user. — Deckiller 01:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
87. Support. Elonka has been working continuously to improve multiple articles despite past RfA's that were not successful. Many people would have quit in disgust. I beleive that she is genuinely concerned with improving wikipedia. Bad Monk3y (talk) 02:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
88. Definite net benefit for her to have a mop Baccyak4H (Yak!) 04:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
89. Support Opposition duly noted, but I still think the project benefits if Elonka has the tools. Nishkid64 (talk) 04:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
90. AGF. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 05:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
91. Support - I trust her with the tools. Lara❤Love 06:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
92. Support. What interactions I had with her were productive, and the oppose reasons below are unconvincing. Sandstein (talk) 08:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
93. Support Tim! (talk) 09:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
94. Support -- Aminz (talk) 09:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
95. Support great user--Phoenix-wiki  11:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
96. Support. - Zeibura 12:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
97. Happy to support (again). Deb (talk) 13:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
98. Support as per Sam Blacketer #72. -- FayssalF - 17:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
99. Support. Elonka is thoughtful and careful, I fully trust her with the administrator toolbox. Haukur (talk) 18:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
100. Support for the same reason as last time. Sean William @ 18:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
101. Support - Garion96 (talk) 20:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
102. Support a good user I've seen around. Dfrg_msc 22:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
103. Support - as with last time. I believe Elonka is an excellent editor and very thoughtful in her responses. To answer the opposers, if this passes I doubt very much that she'll be the worst admin we have. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
104. Support - a steadfast contributor to the encyclopedia who I'm sure will do just fine as a sysop. Videmus Omnia 00:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
105. Support - a good candidate who would make a fine admin.Bless sins (talk) 02:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
106. Support I have been very impressed with Elonka's replies to the comments and questions in this RFA. She is obviously confident, civil, and knowledgeable. She will do well with a mop. JERRY _contribs 05:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
107. Support. I've seen her work around, and always felt that she exhibited solid reasoning. Unschool (talk) 07:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
108. Support as last time. Though I have the highest respect for several of the editors in opposition, I cannot find in Elonka's past lapses anything more than normal human frailty. Yes, she errs occasionally, and is sometimes passionate regarding issues important to her, but that doesn't persuade me that she will misuse or abuse the tools. In general, she seems kind and open to discussion; together with her long experience here as an indication of competence, I'm not sure what more could be asked of her. Having said that, I am sure her admin logs will be examined with due diligence by those concerned with her conduct. Adminship is a responsibility, not a decoration. If she behaves as her opposers fear she might, her recall would be swift and just. She knows this, and I expect will always employ the mop with care. Xoloz (talk) 11:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
109. Strong support for general common sense, grace under constant pressure and being highly unlikely to abuse the tools. In regards to the two opposes where I was mentioned, I was involved with both Matt57 and Mindraker's disruption of the Dunin articles (several times each unfortunately). I am unsurprised by their continued rancor and would highly suggest that their comments be taken with a large grain of salt. I would be happy to provide quick background/summary with diffs for anyone interested. Shell 12:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
110. Strong support she's smart and trustworthy, and that's what counts. KDerrida (talk) 12:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
111. Support per Tim! - Darwinek (talk) 12:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
112. Support - I actually had a run in with Elonka regarding the ethnicity on her father's article way way way back. I could easily hold a grudge and vote oppose but this editor is clearly deadicated to this project. I know if I ever decided to run for admin I would have more than a few folks oppose me based on differences of opinion and not about my deadication to this project. Are there some differences amoung us? Oh course, but enough is enough. Best of luck Elonka! --Tom 14:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
113. Support - excellent contributor and good quality answers. enjoyed working with her to bring Fustat up to Good article status. ITAQALLAH 15:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
114. Support - I read through some of the Kaaba diffs that the opposers provided. It seems to me that Elonka was doing an appropriate and civil job of explaining her position (as well as the feelings of those outside the WP community) and offering suggestions without engaging in an edit war. Regardless of whether one agrees with her, I can't see anything damning to an RFA. Matchups (talk) 15:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
115. Support So pissed off at Elonka for not telling me she was running for RFA so I could support... Anyone who's seen her Simutronics work would realize she'd be an ideal admin candidate.⇒SWATJester 15:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
116. Support. Some possible doubts arising from a few sources, but outweighed by overall good, effective and intelligent editing - and willingness to be recalled. Kim Dent-Brown 19:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
117. Support. Dreadstar † 22:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
118. Support. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 01:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
119. Strong Support. After long consideration, I strongly wanted to support her but I also read the objections. They ARE troubling because though she seems to be generally neutral and a positive editor, sometimes she seems to push a bit hard. However, she has said that she would stand for recall -- and her standards for recall are RIDICULOUSLY easy. (It should not be six, it should be at least ten editors must make that request) but with such an easy standard of recall, I believe the tools would either not be abused by this wonderful editor or if they were abused they would be quickly given up. With that analysis, I feel more than comfortable supporting. --Blue Tie (talk) 01:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
120. Strong Support - A good candidate, an active contributor and genuine supporter.--Avinesh Jose (talk) 05:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
121. Support - She is a very good editor. She will do a great job as an admin. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 14:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
122. Support. The candidate's contributions to the project are extensive and well-documented. It's clear that she can become passionate about some issues, as noted above by Blue Tie and others, and I strongly urge her to not use her tools in connection with any article or user with which she has or has had any issue of contention. With that in mind, I think the project would be well served by having this user as an admin. Best, ZZ ~ Evidence 14:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
123. Support Wizardman 16:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
124. Strong support. I supported her in her 2nd RfA, and have since only seen the best contributions from her. Her opinions are often strong and sharp, but always useful and civil. She'll make a great admin. Bearian (talk) 17:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
125. Support. Elonka has demonstrated a knack for working with difficult users and remaining calm, even in the face of vicious and personal attacks. She is also a tireless editor who demonstrates full understanding of policies. Horologium (talk) 18:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
126. Support. Most of the reasons I support Elonka have already been stated above, so I won't bother repeating them. I would like to just note, however, that with someone as active as Elonka, she's bound to rub a number of people the wrong way even if she acts as a perfect Wikipedian. I think this was a big factor against her in her last nomination, as a lot of people who disagreed with her came out of the woodwork to oppose her on that basis alone. It's truly unfortunate that this quirk of the voting process has kept such a good potential admin from us for so long. --Infophile 19:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
127. Support - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 23:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
128. Support I have nothing but high regard for Elonka, her talents and her work. Please don't make me come to regret this--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 00:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
129. Support - She's dedicated to Misplaced Pages, maybe even addicted. If she wants to spend some of her seemingly endless energy on mop duties, I say we should let her. The Transhumanist 01:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
130. Support as per nom - Sure, this editor has has some problems, but fortunately, most of her problems are with the right people. She is rather excellent - Arcayne () 01:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
131. Support. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
132. Support - I was impressed by a few things I saw. --Nealparr 06:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
133. Support - I've known Elonka for quite a while, and believe her to be fair and reputable. --Randal L. Schwartz (talk) 07:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
134. Support: As I mentioned last time out, I have had contact with Elonka in a previous admin role, and never knew her to be less than reasoned and able.  RGTraynor  11:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
135. Support: Moving from Neutral. I can't say that all my fears are allayed, except that the community is well aware of the issues surrounding this candidate, and that means that the status change won't significantly grant license. Furthermore, I'm really aggravated that we keep promoting candidates with 30 votes and little scrutiny. The double standard is too much for me. Geogre (talk) 12:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
136. Support - Good answers to the questions, I do not believe this editor would abuse the tools. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
137. Support Lawrence Cohen 16:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
138. Support per statement I made in her last RfA. Jonathunder (talk) 18:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
139. Support - Statement made at last RFA. Still no real reasons to oppose or be neutral so I support. Wikidudeman 18:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)