Misplaced Pages

:Requests for adminship/Elonka 2: 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 01:47, 28 July 2007 editTony Sidaway (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers81,722 edits →[]: Misplaced Pages:Consensus not numbers: I'm convinced that Elonka can be trusted with the tools, and I therefore propose that we promote her← Previous edit Revision as of 01:49, 28 July 2007 edit undoMatt57 (talk | contribs)8,665 edits →Discussion: Oppose - including and detailing my pre RFA oppose comment more, if anyone wants to delete/strike/include my original comment above, its up to youNext edit →
Line 134: Line 134:
#::Rather than deleting this pre-RFA-acceptance comment I think it should just be struck through. Matt57 can remove the striked formatting when/if he wants. --] 23:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC) #::Rather than deleting this pre-RFA-acceptance comment I think it should just be struck through. Matt57 can remove the striked formatting when/if he wants. --] 23:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
#:::Here's another issue I examined closely before conominating. I may be in a particularly good position to comment because some Muslim editors invited my input while mediation was ongoing. As far as I can tell, Elonka's understanding of ] is fine. That policy and the undue weight clause of ] come into juncture at the issue of Muhammad images, since the Muslim tradition ''is'' predominantly anti-iconic. Thoughtful editors can have legitimate differences of opinion about the proper balance for those competing policy concerns. Her actions looked to me like reasonable ones in terms of site standards and policy. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 00:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC) #:::Here's another issue I examined closely before conominating. I may be in a particularly good position to comment because some Muslim editors invited my input while mediation was ongoing. As far as I can tell, Elonka's understanding of ] is fine. That policy and the undue weight clause of ] come into juncture at the issue of Muhammad images, since the Muslim tradition ''is'' predominantly anti-iconic. Thoughtful editors can have legitimate differences of opinion about the proper balance for those competing policy concerns. Her actions looked to me like reasonable ones in terms of site standards and policy. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 00:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
# '''Oppose''': Although this user is polite and soft, she's too soft and gets swayed easily. I've interacted with her on the of images of Muhammad. In this issue, she has supported censorship of religious images by we should replace a certain image or put a show/hide option. She supports compromise if it means breaking Misplaced Pages policies so I'm definitely against her. She has little or no regard for policies in at least one area so I assume she can do the same for other areas too. This is a good user but not strong enough. I doubt she'll be able to resolve disputes and make good decisions. At the least, you need an administrator who has the highest regard for Misplaced Pages policies and she doesn't have that. During my communication with her on this issue of Muhammad images, she tried to make me happy by saying that she did'nt support censorship and all, but the bottom line was that she ''was'' supporting censorship (replace them, put a show/hide option). She may be a nice person but she's going to be nothing but trouble, trust me. You need someone with a strong sense of appropriate independent judgement and she doesnt fit this requirement, I assure you. I'm sorry Elonka, you supported censorship and for that, I'll strongly oppose you. --] <sup>(]•])</sup> 01:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

'''Neutral''' '''Neutral'''
#'''Neutral''': I would have opposed based on the RFAR we were involved in but folks seem to think she's lightened up a bit since then (and I'll admit to not having kept track since). That RFAR showed a very unsettling tendency for an admin where she flat refused to acknowledge an obvious consensus until the ArbCom ]. A few other points that still stick out for me: #'''Neutral''': I would have opposed based on the RFAR we were involved in but folks seem to think she's lightened up a bit since then (and I'll admit to not having kept track since). That RFAR showed a very unsettling tendency for an admin where she flat refused to acknowledge an obvious consensus until the ArbCom ]. A few other points that still stick out for me:

Revision as of 01:49, 28 July 2007

Elonka

Voice your opinion (talk page) (45/2/2); Scheduled to end 15:32, August 3 2007 (UTC)

Elonka (talk · contribs) - I think Elonka will be familiar to many of you. She was been a Wikipedian since September 2005 and has accumulated more than 30,000 edits to the project (including 20,000 in the article namespace). Elonka has shown a long running dedication to the project and a willingness to help out with a number of complex WP:BLP articles showing remarkable calmness in dealing with extremely difficult users. I have found her input and assistance with our article on Matt Sanchez (which some of you will know is a long running headache to keep the article neutral and discussion civil) over many months especially invaluable.

Elonka is a formidable writer of content – she has written or significantly expanded over 200 articles, and her work on Knights Templar brought that article to featured status and Dirty Dancing to GA status. On top of this she has gained experience of the various processes admins deal with on a day-to-day basis. She has contributed regularly to XfD discussions where the points she raises are sensible and help build discussion. Her deleted contributions show that she is familiar with the speedy deletion criteria and she warns vandals appropriately.

Elonka was previously nominated for adminship in October 2006 and you may wish to look at that unsuccessful request. It is my opinion that she has worked hard to address the criticisms raised in that RfA, but I will leave her to persuade you of that. What I say is that it seems to me not unexpected that editors new to Misplaced Pages will makes mistakes and may misunderstand some of our policies and processes – that should be no permanent bar to earning our trust. I believe that Elonka is one of our strongest and most resilient contributors and that the project is missing out by not having her on our admin team. WjBscribe 00:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Conomination from Durova

When Elonka told me she was considering a second bid for administratorship I wavered between neutrality and conomination, which is an unusual fence to straddle. Her overall contributions dwarf those of the typical RFA candidate: multiple WikiProjects, GA and FA work, and over 30,000 total edits. There can be no doubt that she's a seasoned Wikipedian. What particularly caught my attention is her interest in helping the important and chronically understaffed WP:SSP noticeboard. Her skills as a professional cryptologist make a perfect fit for that work. And as anyone who's been asked to double check a sockpuppet investigation knows, it's far more efficient when the main investigator has the tools.

I am aware of doubts in other respects and I looked into those. Some of them such as the WP:COI matter were genuine issues when she was a new editor, but she's taken time to put that behind her (and I welcome editors who take a principled stand on that guideline to join me at WP:COIN). Among the more recent questions I examined was the naming conventions arbitration case, where not one arbitrator proposed a finding or remedy against her. Other situations followed a similar pattern: either legitimate but very out-of-date problems or instances where she acted within the realms of policy and common sense. Any editor as prolific as this is unlikely to please everyone all of the time.

So I've asked Elonka to be open to recall, as I am. She knows that if I ever see her misuse the tools I'll talk to her and if that fails I'll open or endorse an RFC on her myself. She, of course, is welcome to do the same with me. I hope this satisfies reasonable concerns. She has exceptional dedication and talent and I look forward to seeing this site get the maximum benefit from her skills. Durova 15:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I am honored to accept the co-nominations from two such well-respected Wikipedians. Thank you, and I look forward to being able to further help this amazing project that is Misplaced Pages. --Elonka 15:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: Several things. For example, helping out at CAT:SPEEDY. I've already done quite a bit of WP:CSD tagging, just as a regular editor. I also frequently participate in AfD discussions, and would like to expand this to helping out at WP:DRV, but am prevented by not being able to see deleted edits. That's the main tool I'd like. I'd also like to help out more with Requested Moves, and making edits on protected pages. Someday I would also like to have CheckUser access, as that's a task that I handle in my dayjob, and I think I could be very helpful on Misplaced Pages. I've also been watching some of the reports at WP:SSP, and would like to help out there in the future.
2. What are your best contributions to Misplaced Pages, and why?
A: I've done substantial work on hundreds of articles in a variety of subject areas. The article I'm currently most proud of is the one on the Knights Templar, both because I helped shepherd it to Featured status, and also because we're going to get it on the Misplaced Pages mainpage on October 13, 2007, which will be the 700-year anniversary of the famous arrests by King Philip IV on October 13, 1307. The article I'm next most proud of right now is on the 1987 film Dirty Dancing, which I've gotten to Good Article status, and I hope to get to FA someday. For a list of the others, check my userpage, where I've tried to maintain a list of all the articles where I've made substantial contributions.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I paid close attention to comments at my last RfA, and have done my best to improve my style both of editing, and dealing with conflicts. When a dispute comes up about an article edit, I move discussion to the talkpage, and do my best to build consensus on which way to move forward. In regards conflicts prior to that RfA, specifically about my block from January 2006, all I can say is that I was a very new editor at the time, and that though I still feel that a perm block was an over-reaction at the time, I also did not handle the situation as well as I could have. I had a fundamental misunderstanding of Misplaced Pages dispute resolution procedures, as well as the entire RfC process. Because of my misunderstanding, several procedural blunders on my part had the inadvertent effect of making the situation worse. If the same thing were to happen again, I would approach a User Conduct RfC completely differently. I would also like to say that I have used the knowledge that I have gained about the RfC process, to help expand the instructions on the RfC page itself: Perhaps my own hard-earned experience can help prevent other editors from making similar mistakes.
4. What is your opinion of Misplaced Pages's WP:COI policy in light of concerns about this at your last RfA?
A: I am well aware of Misplaced Pages's COI policy, and I strongly support it. I have seen the damage that can be caused when those with a conflict of interest get involved in controversial situations. If I am working on any edit where I have any concerns about COI, I either show it to another respected editor and ask them if they think the edit is worth making, or I ask another editor to review any changes that I've made. And in regards to articles about me or my immediate family, I just don't edit them, period. My last edit to any of them was a year ago, months even before my last RfA.
5. How do you feel about Category:Wikipedian administrators open to recall?
A: I completely support it, and will definitely add my own name to the category. If anyone feels I'm getting out of line (which I strongly doubt is going to happen), just come to me and tell me. I have been listening carefully to the desires of the Misplaced Pages community, and intend to continue this practice in the future.
6. In what situations do you think admins should avoid using their tools?
A: One of my core principles is that with increased power, comes increased responsibility. Admins should never use their tools to give themselves an advantage in a personal situation, or even to take action against a user with whom they have been involved in a prior personal dispute. In such a case, it is always better that the admin get a third opinion. If you feel very strongly that a user needs to be blocked, get another admin's opinion. If you've got a strong case, they'll agree. If they don't agree, then you probably shouldn't be blocking that user in the first place.
A question from bainer (talk)
7. Under what circumstances should one ignore a rule?
A: Where the rules are getting in the way of "doing the right thing." However, I should add that if I do take an action that appears to be in opposition to some rules somewhere, then it's important that there's oversight of my actions. So "the right thing" includes both whatever admin action I took, and also requesting that other admins review that action. For example, if I do something that seems to be a serious violation of any rule, I should also followup with a summary of the situation at the Administrators' Noticeboard. Or in other words, IAR is something that might be invokable in an emergency of some sort, but that doesn't free the admin of the responsibility for their actions. Everyone's activities, including mine, should be subject to later review.
Question from Deiz
8. Several sections on the biographical article Elonka Dunin, notably the biography section, are apparently unsourced, or at least not supported by inline citations. How should this be dealt with?
A: Well, since I'm not the one who should be editing the bio in the first place, I'm not really the right one to be asking, per WP:AUTO. However, as the subject of the bio, I can affirm that all of the info there is accurate, and does have sources, either in major press or my own autobiography. If someone would like to take on the job of updating the bio, I'd be happy to work with them to point out the appropriate sources for any problematic section.
Question from Nihiltres
9. What are your feelings about the article about you? Please explain your position on the subject. This was a major issue in your last RfA. (Note: this question is highly subjective, you are especially free to decline.)
A:
Questions from SMcCandlish (talk)
10. In your own words, what does and does not constitute disruptive editing (including wikilawyering, which is defined as a form of DE, and disruption to make a point) – where do you draw the line? — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 23:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
11. Selecting one item listed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion that has a strong majority !vote count to delete, but on faulty justifications (misunderstanding of policy, "I don't like it", etc.), explain, citing relevant policies, guidelines, procedures and/or precedent, why the article should be kept (alternatively, invert delete and keep; or select a CfD, TfD, or MfD instead if nothing in AfD seems to fit this pattern, though that is highly unlikely; or select an AfD that has already closed as "delete" that you think should not have been, and has not been sent to WP:DRV yet. Please eep your personal opinion of the subjective value of the item or its topic out of the equation, as this is a demonstration of administrative not editorial judgement, of something you would close as keep (or no consensus at worst) on the basis of policy and the basis that a "consensus" of inapplicable nonsense is not a consensus.

General comments

RfAs for this user:

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

Discussion

Support

  1. Beat The Nom Support - was thinking of nominating her myself. Walton 15:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. Incredibly active, hard working, talented, and one of those editors who bear our project in their hearts with passion. I'm nothing short of awed by her amazing contributions and the high quality of her work. I fully echo the sentiments expressed by WjB above, and it's with pleasure that I support this request. Phaedriel - 15:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support, of course, per my nomination above. Durova 15:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support Elonka would make a great administrator. She helps other editors willingly and has made a significant contribution to many articles on Misplaced Pages. She gets things done, but does not act in an authoritative manner. I've found her to be fair, friendly, supportive and definitely someone I could turn to for advice on policy and editing in general.Gungadin 15:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  5. 10-plus year Dragonrealms player support Elonka would be an asset as an admin. ⇒ SWATJester 16:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  6. Strong Support, for extensive experience managing online communities as evidenced by this comment:, and for maintaining composure when I essentially suggested that she might have a COI (when she didn't). Jehochman 16:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support Seems like a perfect admin candidate. Pax:Vobiscum 16:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  8. Strong Support Not only is she experienced with many facets of Misplaced Pages policy and operations, but she handles sticky situations on a regular basis without becoming involved in conflict. Her skills and dedication make her a great candidate for the mop. Shell 16:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support I see no problems with this editor using the admin tools. (aeropagitica) 16:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support. Looking at the previous RFA, I'm reminded that I've had some reservations in the past about her behavior in a conflict with another editor, but this was over a year ago. She's open to recall, and I'm inclined to believe that she'll take feedback from other editors seriously if there is a perceived problem. Friday (talk) 16:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  11. Certainly —AldeBaer 16:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support - There were some problems of self promotion raised during the last RFA, but as long as that's far behind and there are no conflict of interest issues raised in the future I'm going to support. Wikidudeman 16:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  13. Anyone questioning her commitment to and well meaning toward the project after reviewing her prodigious contributions, especially over the last year, need only be reminded that she has allowed herself to be subject to recall. Besides, the mop is "No big deal". And concerning the COI incidents, I think Oscar Wilde said it best: "Every saint has a past, every sinner has a future." Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support. I strongly endorse this nomination. Elonka is ready for adminship. In a recent encounter with her, I found her helpful, and I agreed with her assessment of the situation. Plus she has a cool name... my's real name's boring. --Deskana (talk) 17:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support Like what she plans to do with the tools and the sum of her contributions. I've reviewed the reasons editors have not supported her becoming an admin in the past and they seem like they're over and done with. Darkspots 17:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support There is no doubt in my mind that the candidate is a respected and valued contributer but I have to admit this was not an easy decision for me. On the one hand, I personally consider WJBScribe to be one of our finest adminstrators and a person whose judgement I trust but, on the other hand, the fact remains that there were some serious issues raised in the previous RFA. I obviously agree that this should not be held against the candidate for all eternity but I also feel that it warrants careful review and consideration. Having said that, I also believe that one should not forget that ~9 months is long time (well, at least in terms of wikitime). I did skim over the last few thousand of the candidate's contributions (ignoring this month's), and while there's a chance that I might have missed something, I did not find reason for concern. I did pay particular attention to the points made by the opposing voters in the last RFA and didn't find anything of note (which is obviously a good thing). Hence, I see no reason not to support the candidate. S 17:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support - I've been very impressed with Elonka, she will make a fine admin. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support Good active friendly admin, will do a good job. Englishrose 17:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support - I read over the previous RfA & yes, all of that is well in the past now. Everything checks out, editor is kind, courteous, helpful and never BITEy. Definitely mop and bucket time - Alison ☺ 17:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  20. Strong support a nomination from WJBscribe and Durova? A fine candidate here. :) Acalamari 17:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support. Opposed last time, but record of contributions looks very good since the RfA. Was actually contemplating a nomination myself. IronGargoyle 17:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support. I believe that Elonka has a good attitude, and she knows policy. She and I have both edited Juice Plus, an article where she helped out by creating a neutral and properly-sourced draft of a contested article that had serious COI issues. Later, she set up a user-conduct RfC for an editor who some people thought was attempting to WP:OWN the article. So far, this is my only exposure to conduct RfCs and I think she handled it well. The article seems to be overcoming its problems, and the cited editor is still participating. EdJohnston 17:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support encore. --Fire Star 火星 18:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support - as per Ryan Postlethwaite..--Cometstyles 18:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support- per Phaedriel. --Boricuaeddie 19:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  26. Support - Garion96 (talk) 19:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  27. Support -- good editor, good answers to questions, q.v. Bearian 19:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  28. Support per Bearian, I am also liking everything that I see. LessHeard vanU 19:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  29. Support No reason to oppose, + Question 5 response: I don't think you'll have anything to worry about. --BsayUSD π 19:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  30. Support. I've been familiar with this user and her work for quite some time, and while she did have problems early on, most of that was due to her high ambition crashing her into a steep learning curve. I don't think that's the case anymore. Philwelch 19:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  31. Support Without my customary level of reasoning. It's all been said by the noms and the valued contributions above. For once, I have nothing more to add. Very best wishes. Pedro |  Chat  20:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  32. Support. Even more deserving than last time, which I scarcely thought was possible. —Xezbeth 20:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  33. Support concerns on the first RfA were completely blown out of proportion. Pascal.Tesson 20:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  34. Strong Support All my interactions with Elonka were excellent and positive. Elonka is always ready to offer help, which is a quality I like to see in admins. I was recently seriously considering nominating her myself (if I weren't too bonked to do so). An asset definitely. —Anas 21:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  35. Support These difs indicate (as a small sample) an improved effort from what concerns were raised in the prior RFP: ,,.Best of luck! Hiberniantears 21:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  36. Support ~ Wikihermit 21:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  37. Support. A great editor, with plenty of knowledge and experience. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 21:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  38. Support. Supported before, happy to support again. Nothing has happened in the intervening time to change my mind. Agent 86 21:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  39. Support. Every editor is going to get into conflicts and misinterpret policies from time to time; no one's perfect. When you have an editor as prolific as Elonka, the raw number of mistakes is inevitably going to rise. That she's been involved in conflict from time to time is also the inevitable result of all the work she's done. The only time she's actually seemed to get into trouble was with the COI incident, but this is all now far in the past, beyond even the timescale of ArbCom blocks. Forgiveness is a necessary part of working with others on Misplaced Pages, and especially for a mostly-innocent mistake such as this, we owe it to her. As for her behavior with regards to this matter since then, I've noticed that she's been incredibly careful. I can't fault her for stopping editing on all potential-COI articles, even if it leaves up her own OR claims. Stepping out really seems like the best option. Also, I'd like to point to this comment. Even though you'd have to bend over backwards to make a case that she had a COI in that issue, she made it clear upfront that the possibility was there. I don't think it can be any clearer that she's learned from her mistakes. --Infophile 22:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  40. Support. Your dedication to the project is phenomenal. J-stan 23:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  41. Support. Mackensen (talk) 23:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  42. Support. A genuine asset to the project and worthy of promotion. Nick 23:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  43. Support - dedicated, and I think that, even if she was denounced as "disruptive" by several editors, it does not mean that she has not learned. Will 00:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  44. Support. Excellent editor. Handled a troublesome situation on Gnostic Gospels very well. I think this is a no brainer and the votes reflect that. jbolden1517 00:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  45. Support Valued and experienced editor. I endorse the nominators' thorough scrutiny.--Húsönd 00:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  46. I wish I had my own article :P Giggy UP 01:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Strong oppose. Elonka is a highly manipulative editor and is a poor judge of consensus. While most people, including myself long long ago, will actually have a very pleasant interaction with her, if you ever find yourself disagreeing with her, you will see a whole other side to Elonka. In one such dispute I had with her, it was taken all the way to arbitration (Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions). While the case focused mostly at the issue of naming conventions and page moves, the evidence page well documents this other side of Elonka. Elonka engages in disruptive and stalling behavior, makes false allegations of incivility, Elonka is masterful at WikiLawyering, Elonka is a tendentious editor, Elonka has a history of being disruptive. It goes on and on, any of which is a reason to not give Elonka an admin bit. Further from this, I've had other small disputes with Elonka after the arbcom case that show this is clearly not an isolated issue. -- Ned Scott 05:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
    Ned, I'm a little confused by your comment. You allege that serious conduct issues on the part of Elonka were demonstrated during an ArbCom case. Yet I see that the committee made no finding against Elonka nor sanctioned her in anyway. ArbCom are not prone to overlooking such issues and their findings cover the conduct of all involved - the fact that their decision does not censure Elonka appears to me to mean that they were unpersuaded by the evidence against her. WjBscribe 21:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
    Regardless if they decided to comment on it or not, the fact is that this behavior happened. Feel free to check out the links provided. -- Ned Scott 21:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
    (edit conflict)I'd also like to add that she has recently been doing things such as edit warring on articles such as Juice Plus. To respond to something User:Durova said in his co-nom, in the arbcase I mentioned, the arbitrator specifically did not comment on anyone's behavior, except for one clear case of sexual harassment from a semi-involved user. Regardless of what the arbitrator choose to comment on, the behavior by Elonka is well documented and fully relevant to this discussion. The fact that the situation even went to arbcom shows just how badly she was a judge of the consensus of that situation. -- Ned Scott 21:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
    Dear Ned, I can't help but to notice two things at your comments. About that ArbCom case: one, as WjB says, no finding took place, not simply no comment by Arbitrators; and even if any of those alleged conducts that you have presented as facts had indeed taken place, they're at least 8 months old, if not more. Second, I'd like to see some evidence of the recent "edit warring" from Elonka that you assert took place at Juice Plus. I have personally not only not found any, but furthermore, I've encountered different attempts from her to defuse the situation and search for a solution to the dispute, only to see her efforts ignored and dismissed by others not interested in achieving a compromise through dialogue (interesting that she seeks for Mediation and vehemently proposes it as means to solve this dispute, re. the comment below). Sorry, I respectfully but firmly disagree with your assessment. Phaedriel - 23:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
    Ned, I looked at the arbitration thoroughly, and very few editors signed onto the workshop proposals regarding Elonka. I don't think that was merely a case of the arbitrators sidestepping the issue; it looked more like the argument against her just didn't carry much credence with the community. I phrased the conomination to avoid calling out any particular editor who might disagree with that assessment. Despite what may be a heartfelt belief, these assertions are far from proven. And I'm well aware of the Juice Plus issue; in fact I was watching it closely (mostly lurking) while it was developing. My antenna was raised for a little while, but I really don't think Elonka stepped out of line there. Durova 23:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. Doesn't seems to a have sufficient understanding of policy including WP:NOT. Most recently the candidate among other things suggested that some specific historical images should be digitally altered, so that we do not offend the feelings and ideas of our ultra conservative religious readers and editors. She doesn't seems to have sufficient respect for the mediation process in general either or the opinion expressed my a huge majority there regarding religious censorship. -- Karl Meier 21:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
    # Although this user is polite and soft, she's too soft and gets swayed easily. I've interacted with her on the issue of images of Muhammad. In this issue, she has supported censorship of religious images by saying we should replace a certain image or put a show/hide option. She supports compromise if it means breaking Misplaced Pages policies so I'm definitely against her. She has little or no regard for policies in at least one area so I assume she can do the same for other areas too. This is a good user but not strong enough. I doubt she'll be able to resolve disputes and make good decisions. At the least, you need an administrator who has the highest regard for Misplaced Pages policies and she doesn't have that. I doubt anything is going to change from the first RfA. --Matt57 14:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
    Rather than deleting this pre-RFA-acceptance comment I think it should just be struck through. Matt57 can remove the striked formatting when/if he wants. --W.marsh 23:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
    Here's another issue I examined closely before conominating. I may be in a particularly good position to comment because some Muslim editors invited my input while mediation was ongoing. As far as I can tell, Elonka's understanding of WP:NOT is fine. That policy and the undue weight clause of WP:NPOV come into juncture at the issue of Muhammad images, since the Muslim tradition is predominantly anti-iconic. Thoughtful editors can have legitimate differences of opinion about the proper balance for those competing policy concerns. Her actions looked to me like reasonable ones in terms of site standards and policy. Durova 00:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose: Although this user is polite and soft, she's too soft and gets swayed easily. I've interacted with her on the issue of images of Muhammad. In this issue, she has supported censorship of religious images by saying we should replace a certain image or put a show/hide option. She supports compromise if it means breaking Misplaced Pages policies so I'm definitely against her. She has little or no regard for policies in at least one area so I assume she can do the same for other areas too. This is a good user but not strong enough. I doubt she'll be able to resolve disputes and make good decisions. At the least, you need an administrator who has the highest regard for Misplaced Pages policies and she doesn't have that. During my communication with her on this issue of Muhammad images, she tried to make me happy by saying that she did'nt support censorship and all, but the bottom line was that she was supporting censorship (replace them, put a show/hide option). She may be a nice person but she's going to be nothing but trouble, trust me. You need someone with a strong sense of appropriate independent judgement and she doesnt fit this requirement, I assure you. I'm sorry Elonka, you supported censorship and for that, I'll strongly oppose you. --Matt57 01:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral: I would have opposed based on the RFAR we were involved in but folks seem to think she's lightened up a bit since then (and I'll admit to not having kept track since). That RFAR showed a very unsettling tendency for an admin where she flat refused to acknowledge an obvious consensus until the ArbCom settled the debate for her. A few other points that still stick out for me:
    —Wknight94 (talk) 17:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
    I note too that the number of links to elonka.com has actually grown quite a bit since the last RFA. "COI concerns are in her past" may be a bit overstated. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
    I feel compelled to respond to some of these complaints with a "So fix it". Elonka hasn't edited these articles for over a year, and given that she shouldn't be editing them at all, it's up to others to remove any original research she added early in her career. Plus, the one that Jimbo blanked was never edited by Elonka in the first place. Philwelch 19:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
    At the time, I considered that but figured she would once again lodge an unfounded accusation of stalking. Hopefully everyone is correct and she has mellowed enough to allow someone to "fix it" and stub the articles that are based on her WP:OR. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
    I don't see any problem if someone goes in with the vacuum cleaner and gets the dust out of the corners. It's a catch-22 for people who meet the site's notability threshold, so help is welcome. Durova 19:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. Neutral: A fantastically productive and intelligent editor, but some of the behaviors raised by the oppose !voters give me pause, especially disruptiveness and editwarring (I'm still following the arguments up there about whether these concerns are valid), and lack of faith in WP:NOTCENSORED (with regard to the old art; I'm less concerned about the thorny Mohammed images issue). — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 00:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)