Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 2

Elonka

Voice your opinion (talk page) (139/57/4); 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 will say is that it seems to me not unexpected that editors new to Wikipedia 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^Charge! 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 Wikipedia. --Elonka 15:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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: [1] Perhaps my own hard-earned experience can help prevent other editors from making similar mistakes.

4. What is your opinion of Wikipedia's WP:COI policy in light of concerns about this at your last RfA?

A: I am well aware of Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia 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: Erm, my understanding is that I already answered this question via my replies to questions #8 and #4. If you need further clarification, please let me know? --Elonka 22:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Questions from SMcCandlish (talk)

Withdrawn due to lack of response, attack-dog candidate supporter behavior, and having found my answers elsewhere. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

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 [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Note: I am acknowledging that this question was asked, and then withdrawn. If you'd like to post an alternate version of the query, please let me know. --Elonka 22:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I ack your ack, but even brilliant answers to these wouldn't assuage the other concerns I have. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

11. Selecting one item listed at Wikipedia: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 keep 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.

I don't normally butt into these, but Q11 is one of the most loaded questions I've seen. This could take hours to do! You are in effect asking the candidate to go and judge the consensus on just about every AfD in an effort to answer your question, and if they can't find a suitable one, hell, they should move on to MfDs. With the greatest respect to SMcCandlish, Elonka, if you're listening, I wouldn't bother. Ryan Postlethwaite 09:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought the same thing, and asked SMcCandlish if they wouldn't mind simplifying it, or suggesting an appropriate discussion to evaluate, request politely declined. [2] Deiz talk 09:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

That sounds rather a bit overprotective. I used the same questions at load of RfAs today, and plenty of hopefuls rapidly asnwered them. I was hardly the originator of this line of questioning (and the version I got didn't even have any options available). I think you are reading it too way too literally. It doesn't mean literally read every single AfD there is, it means look around for a landslide of obvious "me too", "I don't like it", "I don't know it", etc. type reasoning, with a handful of well reasoned opposing !votes that are based in real policy and explain what the faults are on the wrong-headed majority side. This is really a pretty darned basic excercise, and is directly reflective of what real admins have to do. And really only takes a few minutes to find one – just in the rash of new Harry Potter cruft AfDs there's a lot of emotive loveit/hateit nonsense "arguments" (noise) being presented, on both sides. And she can can invert it and look for a landslide of boneheaded "keeps", doubling the odds of finding one, or go to TfD (hint, hint - many of the arguments in there are frequently way off-kilter; easy pickings). I had one candidate report back with a landslide but wrongheaded merge, which was just as interesting. So, like, don't get all perturbed please. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 12:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Any further discussion of this should please go to User talk:SMcCandlish#RfA questions; protracted commentor-to-commentor debates on RfA pages aren't a Good Thing. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Note: I am acknowledging that this question was asked, and then withdrawn. If you'd like to post an alternate version of the query, please let me know. --Elonka 22:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Matt57 (talk)

12. We've had some discussions on this before but people should see this too. You've supported replacing the Kaaba image or putting a show/hide option because its offensive to some editors (who are obviously not typical Wikipedia readers). When you're an admin, are you going to repeat the kinds of judgements you've made on the Kaaba image or will you respect WP:CENSOR? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 02:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

A: I respect all Wikipedia policies, including WP:CENSOR, WP:CONSENSUS, and the WP:UNDUE portion of WP:NPOV. In this particular issue, as regards the issues of images of Muhammad, I feel that the issue fell into a grey area in between conflicting policies. As such, since there were good faith objections, I felt that it was worthwhile seeking if there was a valid compromise position. But at this point, consensus seems to be clear that inclusion of the images is appropriate, and I am willing to support that consensus.

So you changed your own opinion of Replacing the image to keeping the image because consensus said so? Why did you decide on a Replace in the first place and why did you change your mind based on what other people are saying? i.e., where's your own judgement? You changed your stance on an issue depending on what people wanted. Thats not a good sign of strong independent judgement. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 00:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, people don't need to have strong independent judgement to become administrators. A.Z. 01:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Seriously?! —Wknight94 (talk) 01:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

A.Z., according to you, everyone should be an administrator. I guess that includes Willy on Wheels. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 01:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

This issue has already been addressed on my talk page. A.Z. 01:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Elonka and I had considerable discussions on this point so perhaps I can clarify (and please correct me if I misspeak, Elonka). Occasionally a situation arises where two different policy concerns intersect and a variety of opinions are valid, depending on how the editors weigh the relative claims of each interpretation. Mutual respect and consensus play an important role in those outcomes. Durova^Charge! 01:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

There was no such thing as "two different policy concerns" in this case. All policies pointed toward keeping the image. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 01:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, at the Muhammad images RFC where I participated before Elonka got involved in the matter, I went on record with an opinion the anti-iconic tradition in Islam did hold water with WP:NPOV#Undue weight. A wide range of images exist beyond portraiture: location photos, maps, calligraphy, etc. That doesn't mean censoring out portraiture, just giving it a proportionate place in the larger context with a focus on the overall informative value of the article, with excess images of all sorts to Commons. If you'd like to discuss this further, though, suggest taking to talk. Durova^Charge! 03:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Artificial arguments for the removal of images are invented all the time, but artificial they remain. Beit Or 19:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Durova, the UNDUE is a weak argument in this case and is actually not true. CENSOR is very strong in its application here. Please see this for details. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 20:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Question from Twenty Years

13. In the past, you have had some issues with Assuming good faith, making personal attacks, and making point/s. What have you done to adress these issues? 13:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

A: Um, no, I don't believe that I've had any trouble with any of those. In fact, it actually makes me smile to see anyone accusing me of making personal attacks, because if anything I think that I am over civil, not the other way around. ;) In fact, at least one of my opposers commented that I'm "too soft," heh. Anyway, if you do have diffs of anything that you have concerns about, please feel free to bring them forward. --Elonka 17:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

This is yet another "Are you still beating your wife?" question. Pascal.Tesson 20:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I was merely giving Elonka a chance to reply to the reason many people who have opposed her on any of the three grounds i mentioned above. And for the record, I do not have a wife ;) Twenty Years 08:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Jehochman

14. Have you apologized to the people who you may have offended in the past? Have you made peace with the people with whom you've had conflicts. Why, or why not?

A: Wherever possible, I absolutely have gone back to those with whom I have been involved in disputes in the past, and tried to patch things up. My offered olive branch is not always accepted, but I do make the effort, and have frequently been successful. I could offer several examples of cases where my opposers in one dispute (Piotrus and PKtm come immediately to mind) became friends later on. --Elonka 17:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

15. Do you disagree with current CSD policy and if so, why? Do you think this policy needs to be clarified, and if so, what aspects could be improved?

A: I try to keep up on the latest changes at WP:CSD. When I'm on New Article Patrol and scanning through new articles, I generally pick articles that were created about 48 hours ago, and do some rapid scans. Most articles are fine, but when I do tag for deletion, tags that I use most often are probably {{db-music}}, {{db-corp}}, and {{db-bio}}, though I've also used {{db-spam}}, {{db-attack}}, {{db-empty}} and a few others. Whenever I have doubt about whether or not an article should be tagged, I try to tag with {{prod}} instead. If I were to ask for a strengthening of any particular CSD category, it would probably be related to music or sports figures. It seems often that I see articles flowing in to Wikipedia that are just creating a page for every single album of every single minorly-notable musician, whose only claim to fame may be that they were once briefly a member of a more notable band. I also see many articles that are little more than stats pages for sports figures who seem to be notable for briefly being a member of a more well-known team. These feel to me like a violation of Wikipedia is not a directory, but if the consensus is to keep those kinds of articles around, so be it. I skip those articles and move on to other projects. There's definitely plenty else to do!  :) --Elonka 02:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

15.1 Some people have expressed a concern that you've been playing fast and loose with the speedy tags. If you could speedy delete the articles yourself, would you hold the same criteria as you have with your speedy tagging, or would you be more conservative if a second person wasn't going to check your decisions?

A: Oh, I'll absolutely be more conservative. That's one of the things about a {{db}} tag, is that it's something easily reversible -- it automatically requires a second opinion. If I'm actually hitting the "delete" button myself, on an article that wasn't already tagged by someone else, I'm going to check and double-check and triple-check. When in doubt, I will not delete. If I have doubt, I can always use a {{prod}} tag instead. --Elonka 06:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Van helsing

16. Knowing you have an external link to your own website (www.Elonka.com) on your userpage, which is fine of course, I was surprised to see en.wiki actually still has 107 of them in total (including non-main space). For instance Beale ciphers carries 3 in one article, one in each section for books, references and EL’s. The EL to your book only gives a description of what to expect of its contents and... its price. You included them a long time ago when knowledge about the customs here were a bit "blurry", but they are still there. Are the mainspace EL’s to your website in accordance to WP:EL, WP:COI and a bit extreme maybe WP:SPAM guidelines? Should they even be (they are only guidelines)? How would you go about explaining a new user – eager to include his own website on several relevant pages, and smartly pointing to your own website EL’s – that his/her "informative" website shouldn’t be included because of WP:EL, WP:COI or WP:SPAM concerns? --08:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

A: You're right, the Beale ciphers page needed cleanup. There was no need for a link that was in the References, to also be in External links. And the link to the book site was not helpful to the article. I have removed both.[3] As for the other links to my website, I think this points to one of the core problems with COI -- I am an acknowledged expert on some subjects, and as such am well-qualified to work on the articles about those subjects. But by working on the articles, there's a valid claim that I have a conflict of interest. And by sourcing something to my own website, this apparent contradiction in goals becomes even more obvious. I mean, of the links to my site, most are to real references. For example, I maintain mirrors of articles that have "scrolled out" of other news organization websites. Or I provide PDFs of old newspaper clippings. These are not to promote my site, these are just to make the information available. If you look at the actual links that are going to elonka.com,[4] you'll see that these are mostly to these types of information resources. My love for Wikipedia is no accident -- I'm a natural historian. My website has sections on everything from tracking the history of my company, to posting the press releases on codes cracked by the Kryptos Group, to pictures of Saint Raphael Kalinowski (who I am related to by absolutely no effort on my own part, heh).

As for how I'd advise other people, it would depend on the link that they were trying to add, and how notable it was. It basically boils down to, "Is someone adding a link because their site already gets lots of Google hits on this subject, or are they adding a link because they want to get lots of Google hits on it?" Is the link trying to sell something, or provide a carefully-researched information source? Was the site already known for providing information, or is someone trying to "build the case" that it could be a useful resource? Has the site been mentioned in major press or other third-party sources? Was the information on the site non-neutral, or were there legitimate challenges to its accuracy? Those are the kinds of things I'd talk to them about, with the bottom-line being, "Wikipedia aside, did other third-party sources already think that this was a useful link? If not, then Wikipedia shouldn't be leading the charge here."

Lastly, I would like to say that any information that I have added to a Wikipedia article, is of course subject to review and change by any other Wikipedia editor. All of the information that I have added is sourced, though granted, some of it is sourced to my own website. If any editor disagrees that the source is reliable, then by all means, challenge it. If anyone sees a statement that they'd like to know the specific source for, then add a {{fact}} tag to it. If a source is not then provided in a reasonable amount of time (by me or by anyone else), then remove the statement entirely. The only case where I think I'm in disagreement here, is where some people seem to be asking me to remove information from articles, even though I know that the information is both true and sourced. I'm sorry, but I just won't do that. I am not going to take an action that would result in making an article weaker. That, to me, would be a clear violation of Disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. But if someone else has a bonafide good faith challenge to any information I've added, on any subject, please, feel free to bring it up! --Elonka 18:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Question from Gnangarra

17 Many supporters have indicated that your intention to be available for recall has swayed their opinion. Given that recall is entirely up to the user's discretion, as participation in this category is completely voluntary and editors can place conditions on their participation can you please clarify exactly what your requirements are. Gnangarra 03:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

A: That's an excellent question. I've actually been researching the requirements of other admins in Category:Wikipedian administrators open to recall. Theoretically, it looks like they're all supposed to put their requirements on their userpages, but in actual practice, it looks like most don't. I'm willing to make a commitment, but I'd also like to get some input from folks who might disagree with it. So how about this: My standards for recall are, "If 10 editors in good standing point out where they feel I have misused admin tools, I will stand for reconfirmation." If anyone would like different standards though, please bring it up at talk? I'd be happy to consider different options. --Elonka 05:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

followup why 10 when the recall suggests only six? Gnangarra 10:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Question from Matt57

18. Here you advised this anon: "For every talkpage message you generate about the dispute, try to have 5 or more edits on other non-dispute-related articles." Is it appropriate of an admin to give this advice to another editor? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 02:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

A: Well, it depends on context, but in general, I would say yes. Whenever someone is obsessing on a dispute, in my opinion, it runs the risk of being unhealthy. Several of the mechanisms about Wikipedia can easily lend towards obsessive behavior. I think most of us can sympathize with the occasional times of hitting "refresh" on our watchlist over and over, waiting for something new to happen on a particular page. If I see a user who's in a dispute, and I look at their contribs and see that that's all they're doing is focusing on that dispute, for days at a time, well, I worry a bit. I think it's a good idea to get away from a dispute, and go work on some other articles. Like JEHochman said below, it can be refreshing to work on some articles where there's a different emotional vibe -- where people are cooperating and are thankful for help. That kind of experience can be refreshing emotionally, and can also help give perspective on a dispute -- perhaps help someone think of a possible compromise. It can also help reduce the "sting" of sharp words from one direction, when you have positive comments coming from another. As for the specific number, well, I'm a numbers person -- they're easy for me to understand. But the exact ratio isn't really that important -- the real goal is simply to find balance, and recover one's equilibrium. And perhaps, in the case of a "problem" user, these other activities may actually lead to them becoming useful and constructive contributors. And then everyone benefits. :)

General comments

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

RfAs for this user:

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

Discussion

• Consensus not numbers: I'm convinced that Elonka can be trusted with the tools, and I therefore propose that we promote her at the end of this discussion. --Tony Sidaway 01:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Er, that disregards the actual meaning of the word "consensus". If a lot of people disagree with something, then, by definition, there isn't a consensus. I personally agree that she can be trusted with the tools, and it looks as if she will be promoted. But if she falls below 70% support, then she should not be promoted - admin tools should be given out at the decision of the community, not the bureaucrats. Walton^One 16:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • To whom are you addressing your remarks? If you're addressing me, note that I am only proposing that we promote her, as are many of the other people in this debate. That hardly amounts to "disregarding consensus". We are the community (and that includes me and the bureaucrats).
    • On a minor niggle of mine, please avoid referring to numeric constraints to which the bureaucrats need not, and in practice do not, feel bound. --Tony Sidaway 16:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry, I misunderstood your original comment - I didn't realise your comments were a substitute for a vote; rather, I assumed you were advocating that she be promoted regardless of the outcome of the RfA. Please ignore my statement above. As for the numeric constraints, the bureaucrats should be bound by those, but we've had this discussion before. Walton^One 11:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Question 12 is quite loaded (Are you still beating your wife?), and I urge Elonka to ignore it. Sean William @ 09:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

  I'm in sympathy with this suggestion, but I don't see how the answer could reflect poorly on Elonka. Although I do not support her view on this matter, it does not reflect on her judgement on administrative matters. As one of the principal architects of the element of What Wikipedia is not that has become known as "Wikipedia is not censored" or WP:CENSOR, I reject the notion that that policy makes discussion points of the quality of this, or this, in any way unacceptable. Elonka is clearly acting in the highest traditions of Wikipedia, seeking a compromise that will allow all editors to be comfortable with the presence of an image that is very problematic for a significant proportion of the readership of that particular article. --Tony Sidaway 12:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

  I agree that Question 12 is quite loaded and unfair. However, as an admin, Elonka will end up thrusting herself into situations that are loaded and unfair and I don't see how avoiding the situation created by Matt57 as a way to deal with it. Subtly skillful handling of a situation does not always require directly answer the loaded and unfair question posed but may include addressing the underlying issue, including the hurt felt by the person posing the question. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 16:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

  I too would like to see that a candidate is willing to answer a question like that here. I would not judge on whether I agreed with the answer, but on whether the answer was reasonable and supported. DGG (talk) 02:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

  I have to pile on here. Yes, Q11 was an odd homework-type exercise but what happened to Q10 and Q12? Loaded or not, there's no reason not to give some sort of response. She had time to correct one of her RFA supporters today (meaning she's obviously watching this) but doesn't have time to address anything here? I'm having flashbacks to the selective answering days of the Naming Conventions RFAR. Maybe my first inclination to go in the Oppose pile was correct after all. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

  Despite leaning towards opposition, I wouldn't expect Elonka to answer question #12. It's an openly antagonistic question from someone whose mind is obviously quite made up. In my view it's best for candidates to ignore questions that openly assume bad faith; to acknowledge them diminishes the collegiality of the process. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

  I have no knowledge of what will be answered or when, but lets remember that these are all optional questions.... WjBscribe 04:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

A loaded question? First she opted to replace the image. Then she told me she's changed her vote to a Keep because that was what consensus was looking like. That means she was unable to give or defend her own judgement. How did she explain her opinion to replace the image? She told me later (something which she had never mentioned in public talks) that the image wasnt relevant. She knew she would be jumped on by everyone if she said this in public. Ofcourse the image was relevant. There are 3 key elements in the image: Muhammad, Kaaba and the Black stone and she was saying the image wasnt relevant for the Kaaba? Its not a loaded question. Yes she's polite and not trying to hurt anyone's feelings but the bottomline is that she supported taking off this highly relevant image from the article by either replacing it, or doing a show/hide option. Policy states clearly that Wikipedia is not to be censored. Bieng informative is our mission, not being offensive is not. If consensus was to write "lets all play with goats" in place of the image, is that what we'll end up doing? Was her attempting to keep the image off from the page an act of censorship? Obviously it was. She was willing and is still willing to appease a small minority of editors who found the image offensive, and thats wrong. If some of us hadnt been there, she would have happily taken off the image. Where's the mission to improve the encyclopedia? Basically she needs to stick to her opinion and defend it. If originally she wanted to do a Replace and now she wants to do a Keep because of what consensus says, what does that say about her own independent judgement? Not much. Again I havent interacted with her on other issues, but because of her, this image issue got stretched more than it should have and I didnt see her respecting policies (all the other couple of policies she cited are weak in their application, and she has never used them to defend her decision before in this issue and further they're just copies of arguments from other people who wanted the images out). There's a serious lack of her own indepedent judgement. I dont know if I should use this page to drill her more about her censorship decision but it was clearly really bad judgement on her part. Yes these are tough issues if you want to make sure everyone is pleased but in the end, its Wikipedia policies which have to be upheld in high regard. From her answer you can see that she's avoided answering my question i.e., she's not given any assurance that she'll respect CENSOR. I'll say without doubt that she has no respect for CENSOR and judging by her answer, she'll probably never have any. I'm sorry but I cant support anyone being an admin who censors stuff in the name of compromise and consensus. Thats not the right thing to do. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 00:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

In the last few hours Matt57 has been tagging the Dunin family articles for sourcing and notability.[5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15] Durova^Charge! 16:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Not the "opportune moment". --Van helsing 20:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Whats wrong with that? User Matthew must be a member of her family or a very close friend becuase he removed the tags very quickly. I'll deal with these articles later. It looks like some are not notable. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 22:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The named user was a co-party in the same ArbCom as Elonka, and was involved in the same anti-consensual moves which led to it. Beyond that, I won't comment, as this isn't his RfA. Orderinchaos 23:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Matthew and I are not related, and we have never met. We've worked together on miscellaneous articles, and we've disagreed on various articles. I cannot speak for what is or isn't on his watchlist. --Elonka 23:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• Elonka's not going to like this but I find this RfA vaguely reminiscent of Danny's (actually, I'm pretty sure Danny won't like that comparison either). Just like Danny she has been around too long, has made too many mistakes, big and small, has stepped on too many toes to have her RfA fly under the radar. Too many editors have long memories but I think "forgive and forget" is a more constructive approach to moving the project forward. I know these few sentences will get lost in the chaos here but just in case someone bothers to read it: let's remember that we are here to decide whether the net effect of sysoping Elonka would be positive. I think it's also crucial to remember that future editorial disagreements one might have with Elonka will barely be impacted by her sysoping: we all know that the easiest way to look silly in any dispute around here is to say "I'm an admin so that's that". Pascal.Tesson 04:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Elonka appears to have a solid and lengthy history of positive contributions to wikipedia and deserves adminship (which is supposed to be no big deal). Tim! 20:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Elonka, I suggest you clean up any past COI, SPAM or OR from your own page, as well as the pages of your family members, and any of the articles that link to your site. The fact that these problems remain in Wikipedia seems to undermine your candidacy in the eyes of some people here. If you are concerned about WP:COI, take a look at WP:COI#Non-controversial_edits, item 4.—Jehochman ^Talk 11:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Agreed. That would be enough of a good-faith gesture that I would remove my opposition entirely. It simply reflects poorly on Wikipedia if one of our long-term editors - let alone an admin! - has violated one of the core policies (meaning WP:OR, not the WP:COI which is unfortunate but not policy) and has let the violations remain for more than a year-and-a-half in some cases. Meanwhile we chastise and sometimes even block or indefblock others for doing the same. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm sure both of you mean well but it really is not up to Elonka to edit articles about here family members, precisely because of COI concerns. It is, however, her responsibility not to interfere if someone makes a good-faith attempt at cleaning up these articles and I don't see evidence that she wouldn't. I'd like to add in her defense that although she overreacted quite a bit during the AfD of Elonka Dunin, she was not the creator of the article and participating in a debate regarding whether or not your personal accomplishments make you notable is a rather akward position and she's not the first who saw her stress level rise on that occasion [16]. As for the external links, I'm not sure if this has been cleaned up recently but in the 100+ links to Elonka.com quite a few are reasonably legit or are on talk pages where they were simply mentioned in discussions. Sure Elonka.com is not exactly a reliable source but for things related to her work it's fairly acceptable. Again, we should be concerned if she was systematically inserting these despite advice to the contrary and regardless of relevance but I don't think that there is much recent evidence in that regard. Pascal.Tesson 16:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Whoa, look at this. Looks like Elonka knows how to avoid COI issues. Just 20 minutes after someone created the article on her, she came and added links. This is about 2 years ago, but I saw this at other places too. One year ago, in Bruce Woodcock, an article she created, guess what - Bruce appears on the page an hour later to edit the page. Seeing that the behavior/attitude is the same 1 or 2 years ago, it would probably be the same now too. See the coordination she does to avoid COI problems? She probably has all these people on her IM. For sure if she ever gets to be admin, she's going to run into problems soon for poor judgement. She's here to pat other people's backs and get pats on her back in return. This is not someone who has any sincere respect for policies (add to that her recent utter disregard of WP:CENSOR with regards to the Muhammad images issue). They're here to make themselves famous and feel important. Judging by the huge number of unsourced and possibly non-notable family articles, that might be an understatement. After this RfA ends, I'll ask her to help me decide if any of the articles should be AfD'd. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 13:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

  Whatever happened to assuming good faith? Yeah, I'm sure this is exactly how it happened... Elonka contacts Zippy off wiki and asks "Can you write my bio? Then I'll come in 2 hours later, add my spam and it will look perfectly fine since you started the article" (add mad scientist maniacal laughter). Seeing how this worked so well she later contacts Bruce and says "I've got this great idea to help you add spam to Wikipedia: I'll create the article and you can discretely add the spam an hour later. It worked wonders when I did this with Zippy". Give me a break... Pascal.Tesson 14:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

  I havent even checked other articles, these are just the two that I found. Seeing that the duration between their edits is only 20 minutes in one case and an hour in the other, we can safely say that they were communicating something on the lines of: "Ok, you create my article first and then I'll come back later" and then "Hey! I've made it, there you go!", "Roger!" --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 14:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

  I'm sorry but you have no right to assume that this was done on purpose and in bad faith in order to circumvent the conflict of interest issues. Pascal.Tesson 15:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

  Again, given that the differences between the edits were 20 minutes and 1 hour only, its safe to assume that Elonka was in communication with other editors for COI issues. She might have to be more careful now that I highlighted this. She might involve some other friends in future so this kind of thing is hard to detect. There's no way that 20 minutes and 1 hour was a coincidence. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 16:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

  Matt57, I appreciate that you're doing a lot of research here, but please, you've really got me wrong on this one.  :) Yes there were off-wiki conversations, but they're not like what you think. I never encouraged someone to make changes. More often the off-wiki conversations involved me repeatedly and insistently telling the subject to stop editing their own bio. For a better timeline of what happened with Woodcock: I created the bio on June 12, 2006, at 18:45.[17] He started making changes at 19:49.[18] At 20:38, he even made a point of putting his site in ALL CAPS.[19] I was actually running into edit conflicts with him, for my next expansion edit, at 21:52.[20] At 21:57, I put a (gentle) warning on his talkpage (in combination with some off-wiki admonitions)[21] A few weeks later, he posted some requested changes at the talkpage, including that he wanted certain sourced information removed.[22] His requests were ignored, so a week later, he went in to his own bio again and added info about one of his upcoming talks.[23] You can see another (mild) admonishment from me in the following edit summary.[24] So please, don't assume that I was encouraging him to make those edits. It's actually quite the opposite, I was doing my best to rein him in. --Elonka 18:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

  Thats what I'm saying. You created his bio and he came in an hour later. That means you were talking to him on IM or something so he could come in and make changes after you created his stub. Take my advice if you want: dont stand for an RfA again. It wont work. I will always oppose you until you admit that you were wrong in trying to remove Muhammad images and until you apologize sincerely. As another user pointed out "Her tendency to simply not consider that she might be wrong is a problem that I cannot overlook.", and unless you're willing to admit you're wrong, you'll never be an admin, trust me on that.--Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 19:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

  Matt57, your participation in this RfA seems to be classic Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. Your dispute with Elonka over the Muhammad pictures issue is just one aspect of Elonka's Wikipedia participation, yet you stake everything on it and categorically refuse to consider any other evidence unless Elonka bends to your will. That's not the wiki way. If you feel that this dispute has not been resolved to your satisfaction, please take it to an appropriate forum. Jehochman ^Talk 19:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

  I'm seeing it now. She tells the anon: For every talkpage message you generate about the dispute, try to have 5 or more edits on other non-dispute-related articles. - Thats advising someone else to be manipulative, isnt it? Thats what other people said too:

• "Elonka is a highly manipulative editor"
• "Shameless self-promoter, who has figured out how to manipulate Wikipedia"
• "Danny's claims of Elonka's manipulating Wikipedia for bare-faced publicity seem to have some weight"
• "she strikes me as manipulative and ego driven"

• You were one of her initial supporters. I'm going to ask you: If someone was an admin, is it appropriate of them to advise someone else to have 5 or more edits for each dispute-involving edit? This is teaching people to be manipulative and behave like trolls infact. It reminds me of another banned user (not naming him per WP:DENY). He'd hang around the reference desk giving advice to people and looking nice and then he's do the kind of trollish/abusive editing that eventually got him banned. In summary, she's teaching this anon to game the Wikipedia system, which is what other users have pointed out too. Pascal.Tesson (who tried to remove my comment) and you should both respond to this and tell me that this is not manipulative or gaming the system. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 02:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

  Come to my talk page for a longer discussion. In brief, I think Elonka is a mathematically minded person. So am I, which is why we understand each other. Some people think in terms of numbers, rules and patterns. She's counseling this user to maintain balance , using a formula (5:1 ratio) as a guideline. I recently gave similar advice to one of our administrators who was spending too much time on the noticeboards and too little time in mainspace. This condition, adminitis, can also affect non-admins. I've experienced it myself. Users must be careful not to become overly involved in disputes to the point that they start seeing bad faith where there is none. It's very healthy to edit different articles in mainspace where most of the users you meet are cooperative and helpful. Elonka is helping this user to avoid adminitis and reduce stress levels. That's a Good Thing® for the project, in my opinion. Jehochman ^Talk 03:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Support

1. Beat The Nom Support - was thinking of nominating her myself. Walton^One 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^Charge! 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 Wikipedia. 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 ^{Denny Crane.} 16:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
6. Strong Support, for extensive experience managing online communities as evidenced by this comment:[25], and for maintaining composure [26] when I essentially suggested that she might have a COI (when she didn't). Jehochman ^Talk 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 Wikipedia 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 ^babelfish 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)

   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)

   Looking at some of the oppose reasons gives me pause. Given that I'd already had reservations, I can no longer support. When in doubt, do not promote. The potential harm of a bad admin outweighs the potential usefulness of a good admin. Friday (talk) 17:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

10. Certainly —AldeBaer 16:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
11. 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 ^(talk) 16:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
12. 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)
13. 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)
14. 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)
15. 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 ^up? 17:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
16. Support - I've been very impressed with Elonka, she will make a fine admin. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
17. Support Good active friendly admin, will do a good job. Englishrose 17:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
18. 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)
19. Strong support a nomination from WJBscribe and Durova? A fine candidate here. :) Acalamari 17:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
20. 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)
21. 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)
22. Support encore. --Fire Star 火星 18:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
23. Support - as per Ryan Postlethwaite..--Cometstyles 18:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
24. Support- per Phaedriel. --Boricuaeddie 19:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
25. Support - Garion96 (talk) 19:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
26. Support -- good editor, good answers to questions, q.v. Bearian 19:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC) - P.S. I was not solicited for my vote! Bearian 19:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
27. Support per Bearian, I am also liking everything that I see. LessHeard vanU 19:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
28. Support No reason to oppose, + Question 5 response: I don't think you'll have anything to worry about. --BsayUSD [Talk]π[contribs] 19:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
29. 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)
30. 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)
31. Support. Even more deserving than last time, which I scarcely thought was possible. —Xezbeth 20:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
32. Support concerns on the first RfA were completely blown out of proportion. Pascal.Tesson 20:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

    Additional comment: ironically, these same concern are also being blown out of proportion here despite a complete lack of evidence that the COI concerns are still present. Elonka's behavior in this RfA has been exemplary and for what it's worth I'm even more convinced than I was a few days ago that the net effect of her adminship would be positive. Pascal.Tesson 14:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

33. 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 ^talk? 21:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
34. Support These difs indicate (as a small sample) an improved effort from what concerns were raised in the prior RFP: [27],[28],[29].Best of luck! Hiberniantears 21:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

    Support ~ Wikihermit 21:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

    (Changed to Neutral.) ~ Wikihermit 02:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

35. Support. A great editor, with plenty of knowledge and experience. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 21:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
36. 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)
37. 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 Wikipedia, 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 ^{(Talk)(Contribs)} 22:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

    Noticed a canvassing template up, so for full transparency I will note that Elonka did inform me of this. However, this is likely in response to me making it quite clear I'd be interested in this process[30]. Unless she also sent such e-mails to others, I really doubt this qualifies as canvassing. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

    I don't notice that on your talk page. Can we assume that Elonka canvassed you off-Wiki then? —Wknight94 (talk) 19:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

    I don't think so, dear Wknight. From what I gather, Infophile refers to his offer to nominate Elonka, and his realization that he wasn't experienced in RfA process enough to handle it. Tho it looks pretty clear to me, maybe a confirmation from Infophile could clear this for good? Best regards, Phaedriel - 19:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

    I honestly hope you're right. But since Infophile specifically mentions e-mail ("Unless she also sent such e-mails to others"), I am now forced to think that Elonka has e-mailed all of her friends off-wiki to ask for their support. Distasteful at best. However, it would not surprise me much since I counted no less than six obvious or confessed meatpuppets at her first RFA: Rewtguy (talk · contribs), TheBigPicture (talk · contribs), Cwire4 (talk · contribs), 81.178.239.93 (talk · contribs), Sparr (talk · contribs) (who mentioned meeting her in person), and Aestetix (talk · contribs) (who admitted to working with Elonka). The trust level is sinking like a cement cloud. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

    Phaedriel's description of the situation is essentially correct. Wknight, please see what I said in my last comment to her on her talk page: "I'll be happy to help out and co-nom, though. Just let me know if there's anything I can do to help." I was quite literally asking her to let me know if anything such as this happened. What happened recently is simply that she e-mailed me saying that this RfA exists - thus letting me know that such a something had happened. See WP:CANVASS#Friendly notice - this qualifies as "an unsolicited request to be kept informed." And no, I am not an off-wiki acquaintance of hers (she used the wikipedia e-mailing system), and I have no reason to believe that she has contacted anyone else. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

    Well it makes me curious why she didn't just use your talk page but I probably already know the answer to that question. Now I wonder how many other people she e-mailed. You admit you've never spoken off-wiki and yet you got an e-mail. Surely her close friends were notified if you were! Hopefully she'll be honest about how many people she e-mailed and set my mind at ease. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

    Interpret it however you want, you have all the facts I can provide. In my opinion, she informed me of something I'd asked to be informed of; the specific method doesn't really matter to me. I don't know her specific reasons for choosing e-mail, and I'm not going to jump to the assumption that they're malicious.--Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

    (reply to Wknight94) No, I am not doing any mass-emailing. And most of those supposed sockpuppets at my last RfA, I have no idea who they were. And if I would have known what they were planning, I would have told them not to participate. I'm fully aware that any sockpuppet or meatpuppet !vote here makes me look bad. Also, to be honest, if I make admin here, I want to know that I made it on my own merits, by consensus of the existing Wikipedia community -- not some artificial collection of voting blocks. --Elonka 21:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

38. Support. Your dedication to the project is phenomenal. J-stan ^Talk 23:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
39. Support. Mackensen (talk) 23:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
40. Support. A genuine asset to the project and worthy of promotion. Nick 23:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

    Note: The above comment was added by 172.214.105.244 (talk · contribs), who has few other edits.[31] --Elonka 21:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

    Maybe Nick forgot to login. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

    Yeah it was Nick - I don't think he was on his own computer so didn't want to log on. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

41. 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 ^(talk) 00:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
42. 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^Talk 00:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
43. Support Valued and experienced editor. I endorse the nominators' thorough scrutiny.--Húsönd 00:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
44. I wish I had my own article :P Giggy _U^CP 01:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

    Conversely, I'm really glad I don't have my own article! ;-) --Fire Star 火星 18:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

45. SupportShe has avoided editing her own article since at least October of last year, and that would be my only concern. Other than that, she is a great editor. i ^{(said) (did)} 02:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
46. Support. Elonka will unquestionably benefit the project if given the extra tools and I have no doubt she will use them wisely. - auburnpilot talk 02:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
47. Support. Elonka is an excellent example of a user who bumped her head into a couple of things in her early days but because she was given a chance and carried on she developed into an extremely valuable and thoughtful editor. I have no hesitation in recommending her for adminship. She has experience across the board and will use the admin buttons with wisdom and restraint. Haukur 02:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
48. Support. She's put up with a lot, and keeps coming back, improving every time. Side note: when I read the oppose reason that she was too soft, I nearly spit out my drink, that was the last objection I expected. Polite, yes, she's gotten better at that, but Elonka's never been soft. Maggie Thatcher has nothing on this lady. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 02:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

    The issue in Oppose vote #3 seems to be trying to assume AGF rather than "oppose (on being) too soft" - The substance of the vote was actually a criticism of Elonka's call for censorship of the encyclopaedia. Zivko85 09:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

49. How-could-I-not-support-this-even-if-I'm-meant-to-be-on-Wikibreak support. ~ Riana ⁂ 02:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
50. The response to the psalm RfA is hell yes... Daniel 03:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
51. Support: I could definitely use some help at WP:SSP. I'm also favorably disposed toward admin candidates who contribute a lot of high-quality content. While some of the concerns raised below are significant, I think that being open to recall will provide a meaningful layer of accountability and assuages any concerns I have there. MastCell ^Talk 03:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
52. Support: Elonka has shown herself to be a prolific wikipedian. I support her for many reasons, and most have been stated above. One that hasn't is her neutrality on the issue of images of Muhammad and her willingness to create concensus with users based on wiki policy.Bless sins 04:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
53. Support It is time to give her the mop. A very active editor as well. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 06:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
54. Support Nothing in the opposition makes me doubt for a second not supporting you. Dfrg.msc 07:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
55. Support For some reason a few weeks back, I was looking at Elonka's prior RfA and remember thinking that it was unfortunate that it wasn't successful, and that's why I support so quickly. A great editor as far as I can see. daveh4h 07:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
56. Support Have personal experience working with this editor.--Alf ^melmac 09:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
57. Support I'm fairly convinced she has her brain turned on. This isn't true of everyone. Subversified 09:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
58. Support (ec x2) The naming conventions RFAR was long enough ago for the behavior of the parties to be forgiven. No big deal. Sean William @ 09:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
59. Support, you should have passed previous RfA. @pple 10:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
60. Support - The Cone of Silence cabal says yes. - hahnchen 10:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
61. Support A good editor through have no interaction. Harlowraman 10:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
62. Support - In my time on Wikipedia, I have seen Elonka's name numerous times and have always been impressed with her intellect, cogency of argument, productivity, unpretentiousness and use of elegantly measured language, even under the most trying circumstances. I feel certain that she would be an excellent administrator. —Roman Spinner (talk) 11:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
63. Support - my opinion hasn't changed. Deb 13:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
64. Support Exceptionally qualified candidate -- this should have happened long ago. Xoloz 14:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
65. Support - Thought she was one. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 15:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
66. Support - Trustworthy and unlikely to abuse the tools. The oppose and neutral positions seem to generally agree with this assessment, but with different !votes. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 16:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
67. Support -Not swayed by the opposes. They might have been relevant for her previous RfA, but I fail to see how her earlier actions are still relevant now. Contributions now seem exemplary, and I see nothing to suggest this user would abuse the tools. And I've gone quite far back checking it out. Raystorm (¿Sí?) 17:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
68. Support, good editor. Everyking 18:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
69. Support I hear babies crying ~ Infrangible 18:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
70. Based on my previous experience with the user. -- ReyBrujo 18:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
71. Support--Duk 19:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
72. Excellent user, not convinced by some of the oppose votes that was concerns from an RFA from one year ago that she managed to fix in my opinion. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
73. Support - Elonka is a fine writer, and logical and articulate on the talk page. In my experience she has been open to reason, taking a thoughtful and mature approach to editing that I expect she will continue as an admin. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
74. Strong Support I had voted neutral on her last RFA. But that she has stuck with Wikipedia and made some excellent contributions has swung the vote to her.--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 21:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
75. Support - Excellent editor, more then desearves adminship Deliciously Saucy 21:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
76. Support. From what I've seen of Elonka's editing skills, she is one of the best Wikipedian editors we have here at Wikipedia. Not only does she do fabulous work on editing articles, but she keeps a calm attitude when addressing editors who are a little less than polite in expressing their feelings, and she even goes out of her way to assist newbie Wikipedian editors who would be more so lost on Wikipedia otherwise. She was also great with me in my first few days and weeks here at Wikipedia. But her assistance in making me a better Wikipedian editor is not the main reason that support her as an administrator here. I've watched Elonka edit Wikipedia on several occasions and am impressed at the hard work, devotion and seemingly inherent care that she exudes while editing articles here. I must say that out of all the great Wikipedian editors on Wikipedia who would be great as administrators, Elonka is definitely in the top ten. Flyer22 21:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
77. Support Maybe a bit too eager to reach compromise in my mind, but overall a grand editor, always remarkably civil.--Aldux 22:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
78. Support a great candidate --Stephen ^1-800-STEVE 23:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
79. Support. i was surprised to discover that she wasn't already an admin. i would also reiterate the sentiments expressed by Raystorm. ITAQALLAH 23:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
80. Support wonderful writer, good answers. Highly-qualified for adminship, no doubt at all. Peacent 02:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
81. Support Everyone should be an administrator. A.Z. 03:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

    Closing admin, please ignore this invalid vote. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 05:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

    Since I instigated a comment (though not this one), I'm going to explain what he means. A.Z. has participated in six RFAs today with the same "everyone should be a sysop" reasoning. In one case, someone commented that no, not everyone (such as Willie on Wheels) should be a sysop.--Chaser - T 05:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

82. Support Elonka is a high-quality editor, and my interactions with her have generally been positive. JavaTenor 04:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
83. Support. Just realised that despite having nominated Elonka I haven't supported her yet. I am unmoved by the opposition here - some strong allegation have been made and Danny's comment would in any other setting I think fall foul of our rules against personal attacks. Nevertheless no diffs have been provided to demonstrate recent conduct issues - those that have appeared are a minimum of 9 months old. My confidence in Elonka expressed above is unharmed, but my faith in the community is a little shaken by the apparent unwillingess on the part of some to forgive and move forwards. WjBscribe 05:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

    The ArbCom closed on 20 January - a fraction over 6 months ago. Zivko85 08:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

84. Support. Very helpful, kind, and reasonable. I watched her try to mediate an intractable dispute recently, and I was impressed by the respect she showed for the arguments, and her calmness and rationality. I think she'll make an excellent admin. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
85. Support Appears to be suitable for adminship overall.--MONGO 08:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
86. Support I was just reading RfA's out of boredom today, and this one caught my eye, so I did some research into her edits over the past several hours. To be honest, as near as I can tell, she's human, has made a few mistakes in the past, but has learned from them. Might she make a few mistakes in the future? Sure, she's not a bot. Nonetheless, I'd feel safe with her in posession of admin tools (and I couldn't even say that about myself right now). spazure (contribs) 10:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
87. Strong Support While I do not agree with her on everything, I would like to think I have gotten to know her over the past few months and I think she will do a fine job with the tools. EnsRedShirt 15:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
88. Support I have seen Elonka present Wikipedia to people; she is an involved, invested participant in this experiment. Let's let her take her participation to another level! -JustinHall 15:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
89. Support Why not? Politics rule 19:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
90. Support: Unlike (I strongly suspect) most of the Oppose voters, I've personal experience of Elonka's measure in an administrative, customer service position. We did not always agree, but she always expressed her position clearly and promptly addressed concerns brought to her attention. Perhaps I'm just peculiar in that her telling me "I disagree with you" doesn't by that reason alone provoke me to to believe that this capable, veteran administrator is somehow unfit to be an admin on Wikipedia.  RGTraynor  23:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
91. Support An established editor and a great Wikipedian. I had a small conflict with her awhile back, but she kept a cool head and I found her to be a pleasant editor. I think that her cool head will help her as an administrator. Pablo Talk | Contributions 00:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
92. Yep. Long history of commitment to Wikipedia. Sensible and flexible, coolheaded. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
93. Support. Much improved from her last RfA, which I had opposed. --Hemlock Martinis 03:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
94. That's so hot. Yes, I'm bringing back "That's hot" for my support, because Elonka is a fabulous lady, both in her work here and as a friend to me. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 05:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
95. Support. I've wrestled with this one for a few days now. The opposing arguments are very compelling, but after delving into the user's past history extensively, I think she deserves the benefit of the doubt. Trusilver 05:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
96. Support. I've never before participated in an RfA, although I do paroose this page from time to time. I was suprised to learn that this editor was not already an Administrator. After carefully delving through the evidence presented below, she has my vote and confidence. Mrprada911 05:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
97. Support. I was firmly neutral in the last RFA and later enumerated my reasons upon request. This user is a far better candidate now that in the last RFA. The tone of her writing suggests to me that much of this is from calculation about policy parameters, rather than indoctrination into wikiculture, but the two largely express themselves identically in action. I certainly won't say that someone who obviously actively thinks about their editing is not qualified to be a sysop. Rebecca's concerns give me pause, but speedy deletion is currently a sore point due to the ongoing backlash against the widespread aggressive stance on speedies. I personally am awaiting further policy/norm clarification on the scope of the October 2006 "shoot on sight" directive and I have no reason to think that Elonka won't also fit herself under whatever clarification may emerge. - BanyanTree 07:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

    Just a minor clarification - the problematic speedy deletions that I'm talking about have generally not been in relation to the BLP "shoot on sight" directive. Her pet targets tend to lean more towards places and organisations, which do not have the same imperative. Rebecca 08:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

    I recognize that but this appears to me to be a cultural problem stemming from the corporate "shoot on sight" directive, which has been further compounded by the more recent "potential BLP problems trump all other concerns" clarification. The problem, in my eyes, is that RC and New page patrollers are told to ignore normal process to whack articles, but the norm quickly became to apply this to a broader and broader range of articles. Since the uproar last week of wiki-greyhairs getting their unreferenced stubs deleted, I'm waiting to see if Jimbo's stated preference for less articles and more quality means that he didn't actually want us to make sure that there was less articles through stricter application and liberal interpretation of the deletion criteria and process. As for how this all relates to this RFA: based off a few bouts at CSD in the past six months, nominating an article for speedy deletion that states "Foo is a bar" with no third party references, which I think is what Elonka is being accused of, might actually be considered a good faith interpretation of the observed norms. If one thinks this is a ridiculous perversion of the deletion process, the issue IMO are the norms at CSD, not any particular user. I therefore don't ignore your concerns, Rebecca, but one of the few points on which Brad's directive, e.g. "I am issuing a call to arms to the community to act in a much more draconian fashion in response to corporate self-editing and vanity page creation," is explicit is that it supercedes on-wiki policy, seemingly including proving that a page falls under the loose definition he provides. CSD thus needs to be clarified at a much higher level than an RFA. I am confused by the state of CSD and I am thus forced to give less weight to disagreements about CSD as examples of lack of fitness to be an admin. (P.S. I'm not a policy wonk so, even if a relevant clarification has already been offered somewhere, I wouldn't notice until it trickled down into a handful of guideline pages or the Signpost.) - BanyanTree 00:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

98. Support - seems to be a good candidate. --Aminz 09:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
99. Kusma (talk) 09:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

    Any reason? Zivko85 08:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

100. Support. I've recently interacted with Elonka in a FAC, where I found her good-natured contributions to be exemplary, and she was going an excellent job in helping less experienced editors through the process. Her article and FA work is also impressive to me. J.Winklethorpe ^talk 11:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
101. Support good candidate --rogerd 15:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
102. Support, no problems. The oppose reasons thus far are either unconvincing to me or happened too long ago. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 16:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
103. Support. I share the views expressed below that she has a past history of clear self-promotion, but it is a past history. We reject people for adminship for a lot of foolish reasons... Even if Elonka were the worse self-promoter on the face of the earth that alone wouldn't be a reason to deny her the admin tools. I would have remained neutral and not participated in this RFA were it not for the fact there is clear evidence of canvassing against her. --Gmaxwell 16:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
104. Support I'm coming momentarily out of a long Wikibreak to support this hardworking, able contributor once again. It's also again distressing to see the character assassination, long-held grudges, and clear canvassing, perpetrated by people (can you say cabal?) like Danny, Rebecca, Ned Scott, Wknight94, who haven't liked Elonka's outspokenness and fairmindedness. See my user page for a lengthier discussion of why I no longer contribute here--this RFA, a never-ending diatribe against a solid contributor, is yet another example of how politics and pettiness have taken over Wikipedia. -- PKtm 16:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

     Note to closing bureaucrat: user inactive since 11 April when s/he announced his/her resignation on the talk page of Danny's RfA. [32]. User made no other edits today and has not edited outside Danny and Elonka's RfAs since 31 March.[33] Sarah 03:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

     I was going to bite my tongue per WP:DNFT but this user has been threatening to leave since late last year. He reappears just long enough to slam someone (often me) and remind everyone how Wikipedia has wronged him. If anyone cares to consider a permablock for this blatant trolling behavior, it wouldn't break my heart... Nothing constructive has come from this account in a long time. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

     As much as I disagree with PKtm on certain things, and even though he just slammed me too, there's nothing that says he's not allowed to just show up to make an RFA comment and leave again. -- Ned Scott 04:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

     My most sincere respect and admiration at Ned's thoughtfulness and level-headiness, materialized here in not equating the opinion of a disgruntled, but legitimate former editor with the disruptive comment at Oppose #36. Phaedriel - 07:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

     I don't know PKtm or anything about them. But I think the likelihood of canvassing and possibly lobbying, from both sides of this debate needs to be equally recognised, not simply in response to comments made in opposition to this candidate. As far as I know, the "This is not a vote" template at the top of this page applies to both sides, not just the people who oppose the candidate. This is a person who has retired from Wikipedia, who has not edited a page outside Danny and Elonka's RfAs since March 31 and who has incidentally previously supported Elonka. (eg: [34]) When someone suddenly comes back after not editing since their retirement apparently to specifically support an RfA candidate, we should treat it the same as, when all these things being equal, the person has opposed. I don't know this person or their history with any of the above users. I was simply noting their very recent history for the closing 'crats information, in the spirit of "This is not a vote" template at the top of the page. That is all. I was not trying to cast aspersions on anyone, deny anyone a 'right' to comment as they so desire, wind anyone up or equate this person with anyone else. Sarah 13:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

     I know absolutely no evidence of canvassing on Elonka's side. And for what it's worth, I've spoken up for Ned at his WP:RFC because his actions at this RFA were criticized there. Durova^Charge! 14:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

     For the record, no, I did not contact PKtm to tell him about this RfA. He knew about it without my even mentioning it. My understanding is that though he doesn't edit Wikipedia, he still continues to read it on a daily basis, and checks his watchlist to keep up with changes. His support does mean a lot to me, because he and I were originally in opposition at last year's mediation on the Lost pages, and so I was very pleased when he and I were able to learn better means of communication, and work together on other projects. However, the acrimony that resulted from the Naming Conventions dispute, I'm afraid permanently soured PKtm on further actual participation on Wikipedia.[35][36] It's my hope that someday he will return to editing, as I think he's a good editor and did a heck of a job keeping the Lost articles free of cruft. But that's entirely his call. --Elonka 17:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

     Dear Sarah, first, let me say I hold you in the highest regard; and everytime I see your name, I think fondly of you, for reasons we both know. That won't change in the least because we happen to think differently at this particular process (and in fact, this is an example of collegial behavior compared to other recent discussions!). The formatting of the note to the closing bureaucrat, identical to the one left at Oppose #36, seemed as equating PKtm's opinion (of whom I had never heard prior to this; and, as criticizable as his past behavior may be, still has a long history of positive contributions) with that of a disruptive and very likely SPA. My deepest apologies if you felt that as criticism; I simply took it as a point over which two friends reasonably disagree.

     I will point out, tho, that I sincerely do disagree with the appreciation that the possibility of canvassing has only been commented on those who have chosen to oppose. Far from it, I see below several statements that take it for granted for the Support part of this RfA, when the only episode that could look remotely similar to it is a notification that was requested by its recipient. Yet, when a very similar situation presented itself at the Oppose section, it was immediately swarmed with "this is not canvassing" comments.

     For this reason, I urge everyone involved, that we all assume a little good faith; and instead of happily starting a mud-slinging war, and of delving into what Ned superbly called below as merely "speculating", that we concentrate on discussing the actual and relevant facts. Best regards, Phaedriel - 19:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

105. Support Elonka is an extremely active and talented contributor of the highest caliber. She is helpful and reasonable, and displays a high level of calmness and rationality. I think she will make an excellent admin! – Dreadstar † 17:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
106. Support - I see nothing overly negative that overshadows the good she has done for this project. I think she would make a great adminsitrator. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
107. Support. I agree with Pascal, Tim!, and Chris Kreider, among others: Elonka will be a benefit to the project with the extra buttons. Nothing raised in opposition worries me. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
108. Support if open to recall. I could not add anything to this, but I will: I had edited alongside Elonka; we have both agreed on certain issues and disagreed on others, which led us to mediation. We have settled our issues, and in the aftermath I can see nothing that would make me believe she would abuse the mop or, powers forbid, the bucket. But if she will, this is where the recall comes in. PS. Elonka, if this nom fail, feel free to canva... inform me about the next one when you take a go at it. Good luck, -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
109. Support. I am not convinced by the opposing arguments. Elonka has established herself as a worthwhile and trusted member of the community, and the ability to delete and protect pages is entirely transparent to the numerous other sysops on the project. I am certain that allowing her access to the sysop tools will only further improve her value to the Wikipedia project. Cary Bass ^demandez 00:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

     (just a bit of food for thought, not trying to influence your vote) That argument worked better when single reverts of admin actions weren't considered wheel warring. Zocky | picture popups 07:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

110. Support -- there's barely a single reason in the oppose section that isn't based off ancient history. While her behavior long ago (in wikitime, of course) is troubling, it appears that she's done all she can to remedy it. If Elonka had disappeared nine months ago and come back as a new user she'd be flying through this RfA -- because for the last nine months she's been an exemplary user. But instead she took the honest way out and is being pilloried for it. Is that we want? Do we want editors who have made mistakes to hide, to never be able to salvage their reputations, to be forced into a situation where a conflict of interest is hidden by the new identity they've been forced to assume? I don't want that. --JayHenry 01:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

     Note that my oppose would never have been placed were it not for events in the last four weeks, although with the background that watching the ArbCom as it unfolded gave me. That I consider to be relatively recent. Orderinchaos 06:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

     Though we disagree, I sincerely appreciate your response as it shows you've considered both past and present, and come to a reasoned conlusion. But it appears to me that you're in the minority of the oppose section. Many of the opposes refer only to behavior that's more than 9 months old. Some of the opinions expressed in the opposes are based off careful consideration such as yours, but my impression is that others are based on a visceral dislike of Elonka's past deeds, that has little to do with the Wikipedian she is today. --JayHenry 20:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

111. Support good editor, nuff said.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 01:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
112. Character assassination and ancient history aside, I am thoroughly convinced that Elonka being given the sysop tools will be a net gain for the project, especially with her being open to recall if she conducts herself poorly above and beyond the normal learning curve of those who have newly gained the tools. I am unconvinced by the opposition, especially since RFA has shown itself to be vulnerable to gaming in the not-so-distant past. At least with Elonka, she will tell you when she disagrees. Support. -- nae'blis 03:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
113. Support. per Cary Bass, and more unusually, Alkivar. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 03:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
114. Support, Elonka is a good editor. Does she have a spotless record? Nope. Do any of us? I challenge you to find anyone with any nontrivial number of edits who does. I think she will on balance use the tools responsibly and for the good of the project, so I've got to say to hand them over. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
115. Support. Elonka has shown to be a kind and helpful member of the community with a respectable contribution history. I trust she will make an excellent admin as well. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
116. Support. a good editor not withstanding, I do not fear that she will at all abuse her administrator privileges, she shows wisdom and intelligent. for those who may fear abuse there are remedies if this should occur, the important thing about all editors and potential administrators is that they grow and learn from their mistakes which I'm convince that she has ▪◦▪ЅiREX^Talk 07:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
117. Support. There's no doubt she has the necessary experience, and very likely, the temperament, especially since she seems to learn well from her mistakes. The opposes seem to be, for the most part, wholly unreasonable. Opposing because she has an article here and declaring "I'm more notable"? C'moooooooon. An arbitration case with no sanctions against her? Sorry. "Too polite and soft?" No freaking way, not based on what I've read from her. I'm afraid the opposition seems to be grasping at straws or transgressions in the relatively distant past, and the project deserves better than that. Grandmasterka 08:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

     The issue in Oppose vote #3 seems to be trying to assume AGF rather than "oppose (on being) too soft" - The substance of the vote was actually a criticism of Elonka's call for censorship of the encyclopaedia. Zivko85 09:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

     I'm still waiting for a link to any consensus discussion that established the show/hide template as an inherent violation of WP:CENSOR. I doubt there has been such a consensus or the template would have disappeared on WP:MFD. Durova^Charge! 14:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

118. Support. Appears to be a very respected editor and I do not believe she will misuse the tools. → AA ^(talk) — 08:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
119. Strong Support. While I may not be familiar to many here, I have been a registered member for 2 years, and a contributor for longer (previous ISP/IP). For nearly two years, my contributions were few, and far between, simply for the reason that I was busy in RL, but rest assured, I was reading, and learning. I have read many, many RfAs, and yes, I'm still learning; it has taken me several days to go through the viewpoints offered here. My apologies in advance for my verbosity. I met Elonka recently, simply because she'd found some of the messages I post to user's pages, and she dropped by to say they were cute, and appreciated. I responded, and we struck up a dialog, about our shared interests. She went on to assist me in an issue I had been drawn into while on Vandal patrol, with a very satisfactory outcome, showing both a willingness to see both sides of an issue, and the ability to remain neutral and offer a compromising alternative. I've read the concerns the opposition has voiced, and here is what my opinion is. First: She has freely offered to be open to recall. She is further supported by not one, but two nominating, established and respected administrators. That tells me she knows fully what the outcome of any questionable actions on her part would be. Second: At the heart of Wikipedia, I believe, is one of the values of Jimbo Wales: Quality not Quantity. There can be absolutely no doubt in anyone's mind, that Elonka's quality of contributions is in line with that value. It is one thing to make 30,000 minor edits. It is fully another thing to have the ability to take multiple articles (some in their infancy) and bring them to Featured Status. Third: We all are encouraged to assume good faith, to give second chances, and to forgive others of past mistakes. It seems to me, that many on the "oppose" side, are still holding grudges, some for actions that are many months, if not years old. I would encourage everyone to consider the great depth of knowledge that Elonka could bring to this wonderful community, and be encouraged knowing there are more than enough people here to "watch over" her (so to speak,), to be sure none of the past issues arise in the future. To err is human, and obviously, with 30,000+ edits, Elonka's passion is undeniable, of course some issues will become important to her. Mistakes are made by everyone at some point. Let us forget the issues of long ago, and welcome Elonka's vast knowledge with open arms, knowing that if any future issues come up, they will be dealt with appropriately. (And, to answer any doubts, nobody asked me to vote.) ^Ariel♥Gold 14:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

     I find that to be a very nice and kind support Ariel, and I don’t want to offend you (or Elonka), but I would like to put the 3 points you mention in some perspective.

     • Your first: I got the impression that the "freely offered to be open to recall" was actually a request by Durova which Elonka was prepared to fulfil. And being nominated by two respected administrators gives of course a boost to an RFA, but in Elonka’s case that is unfortunately a sensible required strategy because of anticipated "concerns" about the past.
     • Your second: "The Quality not Quantity value" – If you look at the 3 most prolific months of Elonka (Sep. Oct. Nov, 2006 see this talkpage) you will see that she made 12,150 edits to main space. 9,800 (>80%) of those consisted of adding an {{uncat|}} tag to an article. Regardless of the merit of doing that, I think that’s contributing in "Quantity", not "Quality". I would rather see somebody adding an article in an appropriate cat than duplicate Special:Uncategorizedpages. So yes, I have some doubts about Elonka's quality of contributions in line with that value. Concerning Elonka’s FA writing skill, I’m hold back a bit by former remarks of an experienced user like Bunchofgrapes on Elonka’s first RFA and talk page. Though I do congratulate Elonka on Knights Templar, and I do not believe that past behaviour are a guarantee for similar behaviour in the future.
     • Your third: "Assume good faith" – yes, this is actually the only point where I fully concur with you. However, assuming good faith with people doesn’t automatically lead to a support vote in their RFA, it needs a bit more. --Van helsing 23:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

     Hi, just to be clear, I have been a fan of the recall category since I first learned about it over a year ago. And at my last RfA, I indicated my support of it there as well (question #6). In terms of my current RfA, there was absolutely no arm-twisting from Durova.  :) As for my contribs, yes I've tagged thousands of articles as uncategorized, but I've also added and expanded plenty of articles. Feel free to review a list at my userpage. --Elonka 23:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

     • I understand your points, and I'm not offended at all. I stand by my statements, For what little it is worth, I still believe Elonka has contributed greatly, and I believe she would do well as an Admin. ^Ariel♥Gold 23:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

120. Support. Elonka is a perfect fit for Wikipedia and will integrate very well with the culture and environment. --Jscott 16:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
121. Support - I was neutral, but have decided to support. Elonka has shown a willingness to bend and does do ALOT for this project. Not afraid to change my mind. Good luck! --Tom 16:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
122. Strong Support - Having read through many of the diffs--pro and con, I have come the conclusion that Elonka is a very strong contributor who does understand the rules. I believe that difficulties which took place in her early WikiCareer have been learning points for her. I see a strong desire in her to be a fair and effective Administrator and I believe that she will use the admin buttons to our greater good. After seeing that she is willing, like Durova, to be subject to recall, I feel that Elonka is doing everything that she can to show that she will be a worthwhile administrator. I look forward to congratulating her on her success! Lmcelhiney 18:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
123. Weak Support I am loath to support an editor that has so many respected editors opposing with good reasons, but I think that there is still cause to support. Captain panda 19:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
124. The Strongest Support - Having previously nominated Elonka last year, there is still no doubt in my mind that Elonka would make the most fantastic and fair administrator. She is utterly kind and professional in her Wikipedia activities as, I am certain, she is in other areas of her life. Without a doubt, make this lady an administrator! SergeantBolt 21:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
125. Support. I am unswayed by the opposers, and her contributions and expertise are impressive. ➪HiDrNick! 21:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
126. Support I think the opposers have some valid points and some that have been quite overblown. I expect the net effect of Elonka becoming a sysop will be positive.--Chaser - T 04:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
127. Support Et in Arcadia ego. Ben MacDui (Talk) 08:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
128. Support Not really following this too deeply I admit, but looking over all of the Opposes, frankly, all I see is "her past" this and "her past" that. How about you leave her past out of it, and you vote on who you think she is now? And looking at the support arguments compared to the oppose arguments? I'd say who she is now is perfect for a wikipedia admin. That's my 2 cents. Oggleboppiter 08:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

     RFA is about trust how can assertain whether any editor is worthy of that trust without looking at their past actions, its normal at rfa for editors to be oppose because they lack past actions. As far as I know there isnt yet anyway we can assess a person on their future actions. Gnangarra 09:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

     The past actions in question were never vandalism, always intended to improve the encyclopedia, at worst disputable ... but most of all eight or more months ago, since which time she has improved markedly in response to criticism and demonstrated an excellent record (see her contributions or Phaedriel's research). That's a long time. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

     The issue where she was trying to remove the Kaaba images just happened about a month ago. Removal of relevant historic images is not an improvement. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 13:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

129. Support per Phaedriel. Epbr123 15:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
130. Support. per all above. --AndyFinkenstadt 18:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

     User has made only a handful of edits, the majority of which are related to Elonka or her family's pages ([37],[38],[39],[40]), including his support for Elonka's last RfA, support for keeping the Bruce Woodcock article (also [41]) and also edited the page about her company ([42],[43]). --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 18:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

     I disagree. User has edited various random articles in good faith by clicking "Random Article" and looking for appropriate improvements. Not all edits have been while logged in. Not withstanding uncredited edits, it appears that some people have more hands than I do, since I have only 5 fingers on each hand and more edits than fingers and toes. --AndyFinkenstadt 18:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

     Andy Finkenstadt, how did you learn about this RfA?Proabivouac 20:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

131. I wasn't going to leave a comment on this RfA, so I could close it, but it looks like it's going to be contentious enough that I don't really want to close it. Therefore, I'm going to support, as I think this user probably can do more good than bad. Andre (talk) 20:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
132. Support personally, but I also support the overall decision of the community, if this fails or passes. I think in this user's case an unsuccessful RFA will only spur improvement, and she will become more prepared for another RFA. Elonka will make a good administrator when ready. -- Renesis (talk) 21:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
133. Per Phaedriel and Ned and Danny's oppose votes. Generally, these high profile RfAs have so many opposes because these users have been around a lot, not because they are bad users. — Deckiller 22:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
134. Support. Opposes seem to be based on personal grudges and/or things that happened in ancient wiki history. Whatever trouble was in the past appears to be firmly in the past. Elonka is obviously quite dedicated to the encyclopedia. No problem with answers to questions. (And Danny's grudge vote really put a bad taste in my mouth. I would like to say that that didn't affect my opinion, but it probably did.) --Fang Aili ^talk 23:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
135. Support. This one is a little more difficult for me than some. I do believe that it is likely that Elonka will use the buttons to delete articles that I personally don't believe meet CSD criteria, not because she will misapply or misunderstand policies and guidelines but because in those gray areas where administrators must exercise discretion, her personal leaning will be to delete. However, I also feel that she will not buck consensus or intentionally disregard guidelines to impose her own views. She is obviously dedicated and talented, so looking at the big picture, I think Wikipedia will be better off if Elonka has the tools. -- DS1953 ^talk 23:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
136. Support. I don't see any reason to think she'd abuse the tools. And her response to the incredibly loaded question, 12, was impressive and restrained. Bladestorm 00:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
137. Support. I don't think she'll abuse the tools. Durova's co-nom (and admin coaching?) is impressive, and she's open to recall in any case. Give her a chance. <<-armon->> 01:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
138. Support - looks like a capable candidate, per Phaedriel, Durova and Andre Modernist 02:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
139. Support - I trust Elonka. My first Wikipedia experience with her was when she noticed that I had made some minor edits to my own wikipedia article, nothing major, at the time I just didn't know any better, she noticed it, explained to me that that was not something that was done here, explained the rules, it made sense, and I followed the rules from then on, but she didn't just stop there, she took the extra time to teach me how to do things in Wikipedia and how the culture works here. She helped me (and continues to help me) work on some original content which (real life issues permitting) I should be finished with this week. I know I trust her with admin powers and I'm glad she was nominated --Michael Lynn 02:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

     Michael Lynn, it appears that, like AndyFinkenstadt above, you have a professional relationship with Elonka. How did you find out about this RfA? The only other RfA vote I see from you is against Danny, of all people.[44]

     Elonka, I'm not convinced that you shouldn't have the tools, but, for the sake of full disclosure, would you be willing to mark those supports (and opposes if you like) with whom you are personally or professionally acquainted?Proabivouac 03:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

     Erm, for clarity, no, I do not have a professional relationship of any kind with Abaddon. I see him once or twice a year at conferences, but that's about it. And I definitely heard his name a lot in 2005, as he was the center of world-wide attention during one conference, when he quit his job to "do the right thing." (see Michael Lynn) I have a lot of respect for him because of that incident. Support #5, SwatJester, has evidently played my games, but I have thousands of customers, and I'm sorry, but I don't remember exactly which one that SwatJester is (no offense! LOL). I definitely didn't tell him about this RfA, he found it on his own. As for AndyFinkenstadt, I see him on a daily basis (he works down the hall). I think I told him that I was going to be going up for RfA soon, when we went out for sushi last week. Not to "canvass", but just because we talk about all kinds of things: Games, Wikipedia, politics, TV shows, etc. A couple other people in my office also have Wikipedia accounts, but no, I have not gone to them and asked them to participate. --Elonka 03:37, 2 August 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 (Wikipedia: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 arbitrators 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 arbitrators 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^Charge! 23:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

   It wouldn't be the first time the arbitration committee has let us down. So I guess Elonka didn't blatantly lie about things in the case (and continued to assert this even after being asked multiple times). And I guess Elonka didn't intentionally blocked return moves, or canvass. Or that she doesn't have a history of being disruptive. Everything on that evidence page has links and diffs to back up the facts, and people should definitely check them out and come to their own conclusions. I seriously doubt that any arbitrator would tell you that this is acceptable behavior. A lack of comment is not an endorsement. -- Ned Scott 03:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

   As said before, dear Ned, even if we're asked to accept those allegations as proven facts (and just as said above by WjB and Durova, I'm not inclined to do so either), much, much water has flowed under the bridge since then, and Elonka's edits in the meantime can be counted by the thousands. If I'm asked to believe she's "disruptive", a "liar", or "inclined to canvassing", I certainly need more than diffs that range from nine months to a year and a half ago. Best regards, Phaedriel - 04:47, 28 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)

   I'm a little confused. "She doesn't seems to have sufficient respect for the mediation process in general either"? Hardly, she's entirely right. The results of mediations aren't binding, and Elonka's comment regarding this actually showed a high level of understanding, rather than something to be opposed about. Daniel 03:54, 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 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^Charge! 00:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

   I disagree. Thoughtful people can disagree on whether the image belongs in the article based on general editorial considerations such as NPOV; but it seems evident that if the image is indeed in the article it should be faithfully reported. Her recommendation suggests a willingness to sacrifice the facts in order to settle a dispute, which is worrisome. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:10, 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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. I saw her "bend" her opinions all because some other people wanted the images to go. She'll face this kind of thing more when she's an admin so it'll make matters worse e.g. she might delete or keep an article to make a small group of people happy even if their viewpoint is irrational - stuff like that. 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. If you do become an admin, I hope you'll respect Wikipedia policies more, thats all I can say. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 01:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

   I've noticed arguments that the show/hide option constitutes WP:NOT violation, yet I've never located a consensus discussion on that issue. Could you point me to one? The last time I looked it always defaults to show for technical reasons, so I have trouble seeing how that constitutes censorship. Durova^Charge! 02:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

   If you investigate more, you would know that she was supporting the default action to be "hide". It was a proposal that SlimVirgin had given (see it here in action). If you look at the Kaaba talk page to see what was going on, she appeared to be willing to appease people who wanted the images out. For that, she's made different kinds of arguments like "replace" (why would you replace a valueable unique relevant ancient painting?) and then she said she was going to compromise by putting in the show/hide option. This is all part of trying to make the image go away, which amounts to censorship. The default action for the template seems to be hide by the way. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 02:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

   I encountered the show/hide option during the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy discussion over a year ago. At that time, when the template was introduced, the editor who created it explained that it defaulted to show for technical reasons. If someone later overcame that obstacle I'm not aware of it because the next time I looked into matters the template had been removed (couldn't pull anything up from your link to test). That image caption now links to an offsite high res enlargement, by the way. I'd still like to see a consensus discussion that established that template as a WP:NOT violation. Durova^Charge! 03:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

   I stand corrected: got a sample of the template and tested it. You're right about the default version. Durova^Charge! 03:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

4. Oppose. Elonka cannot be trusted with the deletion buttons. She has a long history of tagging articles for speedy deletion, which, when put to a discussion, have tended to survive AfD, often with a keep vote. She badly needs the oversight of at least having someone review her nominations before they get deleted, as they are so often dubious. I can see a strong possibility that, if granted the tools, we may be at RFAR in a few months needing them taken away for abuse. Rebecca 02:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

   I looked into the issue with the Australian Wikiproject before conominating. Specific articles whose versions I read pre-and post-AFD looked like very valid nominations at the time when she put them up. She wasn't excessively rapid about running things into the deletion pipeline either. She tried to communicate proactively but got a curt response that essentially reversed the burden of WP:V and WP:RS. Durova^Charge! 02:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

   I'm referring to many, many incidents over the space of several months, and including articles from a wide range of topical areas. Elonka has a long history of attempting to speedy delete articles which were, in I'd estimate more than half of cases, kept at AfD. The issue you refer to above is largely irrelevant to this issue, as it did not concern potential use of admin powers, and is not in any way the source of my opposition here. I'm also a bit bemused as to what "issue with the Australian WikiProject" you claim to have looked into before conominating, because I sure haven't heard of it. These issues are much broader and long-running than any one incident, and the above comment suggests not much research was done into her contributions before the conomination was made. Rebecca 02:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

   I agree, this is what will happen. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 02:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

   I would agree with Rebecca's characterisation above. Orderinchaos 18:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

   I guess said tagging took place at least 8 months ago; for I've taken the time to review Elonka's last 5,000 contributions to mainspace (not total edits!) up to early December '06, and only found 4 instances where she tagged an article for speedy which survived afterwards (admins can check the huge number of speedy deletion tags she has correctly performed at her deleted edits in the last weeks only). As if mere four cases didn't constitute a very acceptable margin of error (which they do, in my humble opinion), they appear to be either correctly tagged at the time but expanded before deletion [45] [46], or perfectly excusable borderline cases [47] [48]. None of them were ever taken to AfD. In fact, I've also seen her replace speedy tags with more adequate templates, and was proven to be right afterwards [49] [50] to add to my strong belief that there's no danger in her ever becoming a "delete-happy" admin. Perhaps some diffs that I've somehow overlooked could illustrate this concern? Best regards, Phaedriel - 03:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

   This is quite interesting - it suggests that she might have been making an effort to get her act together. Elonka did, for a long time, have a worse record with speedy deletion tags than just about any other editor I've ever seen on Wikipedia, and pretty much had to be actively watched because she was tagging stuff to try and disappear articles before they had the chance for wider review. Accordingly, I am very wary about giving her the chance to speedy delete articles without oversight, but these signs of improvement do give me hope that we at least mightn't be back at RFAR in a few months if she does succeed. Rebecca 08:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

   WP:AGF, please. Very old mistakes that haven't been repeated in many months don't play a factor in my decision. Elonka and I discussed how she handled the original problem and why (upon a request) she returned to a related subject last April, and frankly I think quite a few of those Australian student union articles remain WP:AFD-worthy today (examples: Australian Union of Students, Tasmania University Union, Victoria University Student Union). This is an example of a notable student organization: it got onto the David Letterman and Howard Stern shows and caused an incident that made national news. Durova^Charge! 03:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

   I am objecting to Elonka's suitability for admin status based purely on her record with speedy deletion tags, stretching back well into last year, as it directly affects the extent to which you can be trusted with the tools. To the best of memory, she didn't try to delete (let alone speedy delete) any of the articles you're talking about, so I'm not sure why you keep bringing this up, as I've already stated that it is unrelated to the reasons for my objection. Rebecca 08:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

   If you weigh early actions more heavily than I do then I suppose we reach respectful disagreement. The shopping center articles were something I looked into in less detail because that issue was older, but the shape of things seemed quite similar to the student union issue. When the only reference is the organization's website, of course a reasonable editor nominates for deletion after a month's tagging fails to inspire improvement. A flurry of activity often followed when she nominated the pages along with some acrimony. I did have serious discussion with her about conflict resolution, but she had the wisdom to walk away, and again that was fairly early in her editing history. That's how I evaluated the matter and I can understand if you reach a different conclusion. Durova^Charge! 13:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

   I respect that Rebecca and other members of WikiProject Australia feel strongly that there should be articles about certain Australian subjects, even if those articles do not have confirming sources. For example, several of the topics at {{NUS}}. I can't say as I agree with that position -- I still believe that to be on Wikipedia, any article must contain third-party sources which affirm the subject's notability. But I am doing my best to WP:AGF. Over the last several months, I have backed off recommending speedy-deletion of such articles, and instead done my best to express concerns at talkpages, or via {{prod}} tags. --Elonka 22:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

   No, this is a misrepresentation of what I've said. Elonka has a long history of systematically targeting unreferenced articles in areas that she deems not notable for speedy deletion, often greatly stretching the speedy deletion criteria beyond anything they were intended to cover to make articles disappear before someone can object. I do not recall a single such dispute where Elonka had actually raised substantial concerns about an article's ability to be verified - rather, they were unsourced articles that she deemed not notable and wanted to make vanish. Rebecca 02:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

   I have frequently tagged articles for speedy-deletion via the {{db}} tag. In the vast majority of cases, administrators agreed with my assessment, and then they deleted the articles. I would also point out that on some of these, Rebecca then used her own admin tools to undelete articles about Australia-related subjects, but then her actions were overturned by consensus at DRV. For examples, see these logs of a few of her undeletions: [51][52][53][54] [55][56] Also, though I apologize to those who may regard my comment as combative, I feel strongly that Rebecca should not have used her admin tools to undelete those articles in the first place, since she was actively involved in the related discussions.[57][58][59] --Elonka 07:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

   Rebecca, it would help if you supplied diffs to support these very serious accusations. Before Elonka's candidacy opened I asked her to disclose any objections that might arise during RFA, because if something new and serious came to light that I hadn't already examined to my satisfaction I'd strikethrough my conomination. I was and am willing to do that. She brought extensive evidence to my attention and my own investigations went well beyond that. So far, Rebecca, the only thing you have actually demonstrated is a serious breach of WP:AGF regarding my research. Durova^Charge! 15:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

   I'm not talking about one or two shocking incidents that would bring down an RfA - I'm talking about a lengthy, systematic pattern of problematic use of speedy deletion tags over the space of several months. This is not particularly easy to document, and I am not in the business of lying. As for your "research", perhaps you should have actually done some, considering that all your seemingly very cursory search turned up was some (perhaps imaginary, seeing as I still don't know what it is) "issue with the Australian WikiProject", when, as a good fifty-odd editors have pointed out, Elonka's issues are long-running, widely-known, and enough to seed doubts in the mind of a lot of people, myself included, that she can be trusted with the admin buttons. Rebecca 14:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

5. Strong Oppose There are certainly more than 4 articles speedily tagged by Elonka that have survived. One sticks in my mind as I had initially created the article. [60]. I remember quite a few more too, without trawling through the posts. I would like to say that Elonka is a fantastic editor and exceptional contributor to Wikipedia, however her history of disruption (a good example being the naming conventions) vanity articles and large number of links to her own website makes me wary of entrusting Elonka with more tools. •CHILLDOUBT• 09:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

   Dear Chill doubt, indeed; there are more than 4... if we go back and beyond no less than 9 months ago, as I said above (I didn't feel like reviewing entries "that" old!). The article you mention was tagged by her back in November '06[61]. Plenty of stuff has happened in the meantime; and as I showed above, since those old days, few examples of db-tagging from her that didn't end up in deletion took place, and even those appear to be excusable. Best regards, Phaedriel - 09:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

   Dear Phaedriel. Much closes to eight months rather than nine... There are a large number of surviving db's in November before your arbitrary cut off date as I think that November perhaps marked a peak in Elonkas interest in tagging articles for deletion. I will assume good faith though and suggest a coincidence. My concern however is not primarily with speedy deletes (though I still would not trust this user with any more tools for this area given such a litany of bad previous judgments) it is more that whilst I cannot think of many better editors than Elonka, I also cannot think of many on Wikipedia who I would feel would potentially abuse the tools faster and more cynically. I don't believe that making her available for recall would be a viable solution to the many reasons for opposing listed here by a number of more respected editors than myself - in the case of doubt, it is much better to play on the side of caution. Changing now to Strong oppose in the light of the even more worrying arguments against adminship that have developed since my original posting.•CHILLDOUBT• 22:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

   As I recall, the reason that the numbers were higher around then, was because I was doing some massive sweeps with WP:AWB, tagging uncategorized articles. I was working through Special:Uncategorizedpages, and keeping an eye out for other pages on an impromptu New Pages Patrol sweep. If I saw a page go by that I felt needed to be deleted, I tagged it accordingly. I was working on hundreds (sometimes thousands) of pages in a very rapid fashion, but to be clear, I was not looking for pages to delete -- I was looking for pages that needed categories. And if a new page came in without a category, there was often a higher than usual percentage chance that it was a "junk" page that needed to be deleted. Hence, I was db- and prod-tagging at a higher rate than usual. To see a sample of my contribs around then, check here, and you'll see the AWB work.[62] Hope that helps explain, --Elonka 23:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

   Dear CD, I won't comment on the essence of your concern, since Elonka has explained her own reasons; I merely wished to point out that the "arbitray cut" was simply due to the fact that I reviewed the last 5,000 contributions to mainspace (10 full screens of 500 edits); which incidentally left the last one at December 10 or around-ish. Please, feel free to corroborate this for yourself. I sincerely appreciate you assumption of good faith on my part; I only wished to honor that assumption by confirming it with my explanation. Thank you for your detailed comment on your concerns. Best regards, Phaedriel - 23:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

6. Oppose: Shameless self-promoter, who has figured out how to manipulate Wikipedia. Danny 15:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

   Ouch. Danny means this. It was a year ago, but I see he still hasn't forgotten it. Note that the Wikipedia community met it with an overwhelming rejection of Danny's claim. I had hoped it was behind us all. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

   It would be helpful if Danny would actually provide some diffs, or some kind of evidence, to support his assertions, rather than simply flinging insults at the candidate. I hardly think that calling someone a "shameless self-promoter", without any kind of evidence whatsoever, is conduct befitting a Wikipedia administrator (which may prove a point I've made elsewhere, but we won't go into that here). Walton^One 11:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

   I am sorry I read such a comment written by an editor I used to respect. Although I may endorse many of the concerns about Elonka expressed here, I do believe that Danny's commment is completely inadequate for an administrator. It constitutes a slander not accompanied with any arguments. Why such an attitude? We sling mud on somebody and then we run away without providing any further details. This is shameless, you know! And I now think about about Danny's adventurous promotion ... Anyway ... Cheers to the bureaucrats!--Yannismarou 16:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

7. Oppose In my observation this user opposes the existence of certain classes of articles to the level of WP:POINT violation, and after having read the Naming conventions ArbCom at the time it was occurring, I was quite alarmed at the user's lack of willingness to engage with others or to abide by consensus. At AfD abiding by consensus is *vital*, so in my view they should not have the tools. Orderinchaos 18:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

   What classes of articles would these be, please? Durova^Charge! 04:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

8. Oppose. There should be good reasons a contributor with 30,000 edits isn't already an admin. I know Elonka longer than the nominators themselves, and I feel that she is not the person who can be trusted with admin buttons. What is more important, I haven't seen any real change in demeanour since Elonka's last candidacy. Rebecca's and Danny's votes above only increase my unease. --Ghirla^-трёп- 19:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
9. Oppose Per Rebecca, and especially Danny. Pilotguy 19:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

   Er, you may notice that Danny provided absolutely no diffs or evidence to support his evaluation of the candidate. Walton^One 11:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

   However, might also be worth highlighting that very few diffs have been produced to support claims made in her favour. Orderinchaos 04:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

   I disagree, at least as far as my own comments are concerned; every claim or contribution to this discussion I've made, I've tried to demonstrate with proper diff links. The great respect I have for many editors who have chosen to oppose at this particular RfA, some of whom are dear friends and people I hold in the highest regard, demand no less. Take note, however, that no evidence to disprove the substantiated arguments I've presented has been brought yet. Phaedriel - 05:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

10. Oppose per Rebecca. Zocky | picture popups 22:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
11. Oppose per Danny and Rebecca. One 23:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
12. Oppose per Orderinchaos.--cj | talk 00:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
13. Oppose: While Elonka's a very prolific and intelligent editor, some of the behaviors raised by the prior oppose !voters with more direct experience with this candidate gave me immediate "go neutral" pause about how she'd be as an admin. The more I've looked, waiting around for answers to my questions, the less I've liked what I'm seeing. (whatever the ArbCom decided, evidentiary links to one's edit history don't lie). Even aside from chronic (note I do not say constant) disruptiveness, wikilawyering, failure to understand how consensus works, compromise at the expense of WP:CENSOR, editwarring, inappropriate attempts at speedy deletion, and such, there's just something deeper that's not quite right here, something overly self-interested. I don't ever recall anyone else with an alleged vanity article up for AfD who defended it by engaging in indignant assertions of their own awesomeness in the third person like Bob Dole. That may have been months ago (I made mistakes back then, too, and have changed), I don't see sufficient evidence of Elonka internally absorbing the Wikinature any better, just getting more skilled at playing the game. A case in point would be the avoidance of uncomfortable questions on this RfA (and she has been plenty active today; I checked Special:Contributions), while letting her rather aggressive supporters rant against those daring to ask non-fluffy questions. If this were my RfA they'd've already been asked by me to refrain from any further comment, I would have apologized to those ranted at, and answered their questions; but Elonka seems to feel that her win-margin is secure enough or something that she doesn't have to do anything but sit back and wait. With several more days to go that might not actually be the case. Anyway, once the whiff of wikipoliticking in the air, that's it for me. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
14. Strong Oppose Per Ned Scott, Karl, Rebecca, Danny, OIC, and SMcCandlish. I don't vote at RfA often, but when I heard that this user was again being nominated I felt the need to voice my concern. All the issues involving this user have already been outlined above in the oppose votes, and I would concur with the oppose consensus that giving this user the keys to the en.wikipedia kingdom would be akin to Dracula working at the blood bank. A dangerous user who does not act within consensus and could become a significant problem when allowed to work without oversight. Thewinchester ^(talk) 01:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

    Where did you hear that this user was again being nominated? -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 06:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

    1. Don't even try and accuse me or others of WP:CANVASS, it's not going to fly. I heard about it from an uninvolved unconnected party who mentioned it in unrelated conversation off-wiki. Thewinchester ^(talk) 07:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

    I don't like where this sort of question is leading, personally. Why not ask that question of any one of the support voters? It took me a lot to post my oppose vote after how some of the others got treated above, and I'm glad to see that the bullying of oppose voters has eased off a bit on this RfA. Orderinchaos 09:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

    Thewinchester posted in this RfA that "I heard that this user was again being nominated I felt the need to voice my concern" so my question to Thewinchester - "Where did you hear that this user was again being nominated" - was fair. The act of receiving an opinion soliciation is not canvassing. However if others have discussed participating in this RfA elsewhere prior to posting here, or came here because somebody asked them too, or read a message on a forum, they should provide enough disclosure in this RfA so that it may be taken into account in determining consensus. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 15:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

15. I agree with Ghirla. -- Y not? 04:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
16. I still feel uncomfortable with Elonka becoming an admin, and thus I must still oppose. DS 04:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
17. Oppose per Rebecca and Orderinchaos above. I too have seen this user's deletions in the past, and although I have seen from this RFA that her actions have improved dramatically and I would be willing to reconsider this in the future, I cannot support her promotion to admin at this time. Sorry. JRG 05:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
18. Oppose per Rebecca, Danny & Orderinchaos. I rarely vote against someone on a RfA, but this is an extreme case. This user has massive issues with WP:POINT as mentioned by OIC above. Maybe in 2 years. Twenty Years 10:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
19. Oppose, I do not trust Elonka to use the deletion button sensibly. Also, I am quite surprised the article on her is still on Wikipedia. It is, basically, a CV we are hosting for her. The notability claims are awful (compiled one book ranked #119,439 on Amazon ([63]), works for a computer games company, has her own website with a CV on it. I'm more notable than that.); Danny's claims of Elonka's manipulating Wikipedia for bare-faced publicity seem to have some weight. Neil ╦ 11:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
20. Oppose I agree with Bec and OIC above. I've known about this RfA for a few weeks and so I have given it a lot of thought and I'm still very concerned about Elonka's attitude to DreamGuy. I'm not a DG fan, defender or supporter so this isn't about DG, it's purely about this RfA. During the last RfA it was obvious to me that Elonka and DG are like gas to each other's fire and that the best thing would be for both to have nothing to do with each other. Yet instead of leaving DG alone, Elonka has apparently continued, at least, at times, to pursue him. He, and others, have continued to accuse her of stalking and harassing him. She denies this but IMO the very fact that he feels harassed is reason enough for her to just stay away from him and if any actions need to be taken against DG, it would be best if she let a third party (probably preferably an admin, from what I can see) step in. Yet Elonka apparently considered it appropriate for her to create Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of DreamGuy. The cat was speedy deleted by User:Zscout370 with the deletion summary, "no confirmed socks, made in a dispute, requested to be speedied at ANI". Last month, Elonka wrote in the ANI discussion about this category, "I'm I have to admit confusion as to why you're accusing me of harassment, considering we have practically no contact." [64] I would suggest that you don't need to have significant direct contact with a person to harass them and that a lot of activities that could constitute harassment and even wiki-stalking may be done without direct contact and even via back-channels. I'm not questioning the validity of the cat (to be honest, I have no clue if ii was valid or not) and its validity really doesn't matter, my problem is that even knowing DG feels harassed by her, she created the cat rather than letting someone else do it. I think the problems with DG have shown poor judgement, in addition to that outlined by Bec and OIC above, which is likely to have the effect of creating huge drama and disruption should Elonka actually be acting as an admin. I see some of my good friends up there supporting, and I'd really like to be neutral just out of respect for them and for Will's nomination, but I'm sorry the bottom line here is trust and I am strongly opposed to this nomination because I simply don't trust her. Sarah 11:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

    Just for the record, DreamGuy and I have patched things up. It would no longer be correct to say that he and I are feuding. --Elonka 17:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

    That's great news, and I am honestly and most sincerely thrilled to hear that you have patched things up with DreamGuy. However, given the email activities of the last couple of weeks and the fact that the possibility of you running for RfA was on the cards for at least a month that I was aware of, I would like to give it time after this RfA has closed to be sure that it is genuine and that it sticks. The test for me will be what happens long after this RfA is finished. Sarah 04:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

21. Oppose per OiC & Ned Scott above. Eusebeus 14:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
22. Changing from neutral to oppose. Per Sarah and my first set of concerns below as well as Elonka's clear refusal to answer any of the subsequent questions or comments made since. No, I also don't like when people respond to every oppose vote but she's apparently not going to respond to anything said by oppose voters, including Q9, Q10 and Q12, even though she is happy to assist support voters. This is the typical Elonka behavior that she exhibited so many months ago.
    • In addition I'm recalling other parts of her repertoire that I am uneasy with such as conducting all Wikipedia business off wiki. (All of those edits are just in the last several days BTW).
    • I'm also seeing an annoying trend of warning IPs 4 hours or as much as 12 hours after vandalism. That's a pointless exercise that is likely to bother someone other than the vandal and turn off potential new users. I worry that she will block in cases like that which will be even worse. (I would ask her stance on that except she's apparently no longer answering questions).
    • Responding to comments elsewhere, I don't agree that she shouldn't be editing articles about her ancestors, esp. if it is to remove the parts of the articles sourced by her WP:OR. She almost has to do it since the citations were not done inline. It would be difficult for anyone else to determine what parts were sourced by what. An outsider would either have to really dig in and investigate to fix the policy breach introduced by Elonka or else just stub the entire article which is an obvious disservice.

    Sorry if this is getting longwinded but this is typical when I scan through Elonka's contribs: the discomfort level rises quickly, esp. when I think of her having sysop rights. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

    I would like to just respond to this, since I am mentioned in those edits. I'd like to clarify that I've only recently met Elonka, by chance, and she was friendly, welcoming and warm (unlike many folks). I met her when she dropped a note on my talk page to say she enjoyed seeing my contributions. That link showing her reply is taken very much out of context. The context was that I'd told her I didn't have many people to talk to, and if she was ever bored, to shoot me a message, after which she replied that she's on MSN, and if I used Instant Messaging programs, she'd be happy to chat there since it was easier.

    I'd suggest that the link to my talk page (that is the one linked to the word "Wikipedia") be disregarded, because it was posted with the intention of simple interaction, and you can see on her talk page I was talking about things such as we both play the piano, etc.

    As for my vote, I have not voted on an RfA yet (I've read many, many applications however) and I do have an opinion on this one, but I am still doing some reading and reviewing, and I plan on voting soon. In conclusion, I'd like to make sure that it is understood that Elonka has been one of the few people who have made me feel like I belong (after 2 years here). I registered in August of 2005 (although I had contributed prior to that, I didn't create an account until then) and while I did not do a lot of edits in the past year+, due to work/grad school/etc, when I did begin to be a contributing part of the community, I felt a bit left out, and Elonka made me feel very welcome, as well as being extremely helpful. Thank you, ^Ariel♥Gold 15:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

23. Oppose, too much to consider to sit on the fence any more. Yes, great contributor, but having looked into why others have moved from neutral to oppose, I share the uneasy feeling about trusting Elonka with the tools right now. Hopefully not never, just not yet. Deiz talk 15:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

    #Oppose per SMcCandlish. Epbr123 18:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC) Changed to support. Epbr123 15:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

24. Oppose out of touch with concensus and process on deletion criteria. Can't trust Elonka to show necessary restraint with the tools. SchmuckyTheCat
25. Oppose per Danny. I am very wary of giving admin tools to editors who aren't circumspect – even to the point of being vigilantly so – about WP:COI.--G-Dett 20:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
26. Strong Oppose per Rebecca. Can't trust her when it comes to deletion cases, and would likely click delete in controversial cases without second thought or against consensus. --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 01:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
27. Oppose per Sarah. I have the greatest respect for many of the supporters above but I cannot support this editor. I think the very recent events mentioned by Sarah are not acceptable for an editor and especially not for an admin. JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 02:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
28. Oppose. Too many concerns expressed by respected editors, particularly consensus concerns. If we are to err here, we should err on the side of caution. -- But|seriously|folks  02:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
29. Oppose After reviewing your previous RFA and the oppositions, I do not feel comfortable with giving you administrative functionality. This is not to say however, I think you are a poor editor or do not have wonderful contributions to Wikipedia - but I am deeply concerned by the comments raised in your Oppose/Neutral sections. --Ozgod 03:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
30. Oppose per Matt, Karl, and Ned Scott. The evidence presented here is quite disturbing. It is clear to me that we cannot take a chance on trusting this editor with more power. Arrow740 03:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
31. Oppose per Wknight94 and Sarah (changed from neutral). A great and prolific editor and a fascinating and talented person to have on the team, but continuing concerns about her temperament. As I think I said the last time round, edit for a few months without getting into any dramas, clean up the COI question marks around the page on you, and there is no reason we couldn't promote. As of now, regretful oppose. --John 05:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
32. Oppose a critical quality of an admin is to recognize when his or her personal views are not consensus. I cannot trust that the nominee would make the judicious calls of keeping articles or letting others decide (at afd rather than a speedy) in close situations, when her personal choice would be to delete them. Carlossuarez46 05:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
33. Strong Oppose, based upon many valid concerns brought up by editors above (particularly SMcCandlish and User:Wknight94). Extensive reading of the candidate's first RfA and the concerns raised there have given me the very distinct impression that not much has changed. I honestly can not trust that the candidate would not misuse the tools, and believe that the candidate would be better suited to being a prolific editor rather than a controversial administrator. *Vendetta* _{(whois talk edits)} 06:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
34. Strong Oppose - I haven't edited wikipedia for several months, and this RfA only came to my attention when another wikipedian emailed me with “Make sure to vote on Elonka's RfA as you've interacted with this user before”. While i was editing Wikipedia, i had one major encounter with Elonka that lasted several months, and resulted in the [Conventions ArbCom Case]. The many weeks i spent dealing with her during the course of this dispute leads me to strongly oppose this nomination for the simple reason that i cannot trust her to use admin tools sensibly, and to not take unfair advantage of her position as an administrator during disputes should she be granted this position. I'll give one example of why i say i cannot trust her with admin tools – when a page is renamed (i.e. Moved), the old name automatically becomes a redirect page. However, anyone (i.e. Non-admins) can reverse the move as long as this automatically created redirect page is never edited again. In the page move wars during this dispute, Elonka made useless edits (e.g. Inserting a white space) to redirect pages that were created by article moves, just to make sure that no one else could reverse her page moves. This means the page moves she made would be 'stuck' unless and admin came in and deleted the redirect. This is a clear example of gaming the system to further herself in a page move war (which is a bad thing to start with) where she and all others involved where non-admins. Now, if she had been an administrator, what reason would I have to believe she would not also have used her admin powers to further herself? (For the record, the evidence for this incident is [[65]], however, most of the redirects in question where deleted at some point by admins. So the links on that page are to deleted version and will only work for admins). know this is old (the ArbCom case happened in December last year), but reading the reasons behind the 30 or so other oppose votes here, i've found no evidence that her behaviour has improved at all in the last seven months. Yes, she has made many valuble contributions to articles, but at the end, i think what shows the most about an editor is how they handle disputes, especially ones where they are on the 'wrong side'. Everyone can handle things well when they are being supported by other people, but when they are on the 'losing side' of a dispute, how they react says a lot. Elonka, in that one dispute i witnessed, showed she was willing to do everything and anything to prove that she was 'right', to the point of trying to game the wikipedia system, throwing around false accusations, and being downright misleading. Things like this are hard to prove, but i think [[66]] nails it fairly well. Being an administrator is proof that you are a trusted and respected member of the community - especially for those new to wikipedia who may not yet understand what an “administrator” on wikipedia means. Being an administrator makes you a role-model, and (in some sense) a representative of the wikipedia community, it means a newbie who isn't familiar with wikipedia himself will take you more seriously and trust what you say about wikipedia. There are systems in place to ensure administrators don't abuse their tools, but as i just pointed out, tools aren't the only thing adminship gives to you. We need to trust our administrators to respect consensus and policies, even when they don't personally agree. And this is where Elonka fails. --`/aksha 07:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

    ...this RfA only came to my attention when another wikipedian emailed me with “Make sure to vote on Elonka's RfA as you've interacted with this user before”. Am I the only one who finds this disturbing per WP:CANVASS? Durova^Charge! 07:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

    There was no direction given by said user on how to perform the operation, so I don't see how it would violate WP:CANVASS. Oddly, canvass does not (although should) cover email and other off wiki communication. Informing or advertising a controversial RfA in order that the closing admin can best determine what the community's sentiment actually is, is certainly not against Wiki's stated policies or unstated rules. Orderinchaos 07:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

    Comment" There's also no evidence of any bulk component to this. Personally notifying a specific individual that you are certain will be interested in what you notifying them of isn't canvassing. And what people do off-WP can never be effectively regulated by WP (BTW, if you think that RFCs against problem editors are not frequently planned and coordinated between groups of upset editors off-WP in e-mail, you are quite mistaken...) I appreciate Yaksha for being forthcoming about the matter. Most would simply never have said anything about why they were here. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

    "There's also no evidence of any bulk component to this" ... "Most would simply never have said anything about why they were here." Yep, I think you've identified the problem pretty effectively. WjBscribe 08:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

    Now you're just speculating. Whoever did this hasn't done anything wrong (and no, it wasn't me). From Yaksha's comment it sounds like the message was directed at one person, and was a neutral notification. Yaksha hasn't edited in months, so it would make sense to contact him via e-mail. It's just as likely that there is no canvassing going on here. -- Ned Scott 08:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

    Here's a proper example of a WP:CANVASS violation (brought to you by Elonka): [67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77][78][79][80][81][82] [83][84][85][86][87][88][89][90][91][92]. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

    Wknight94, do you assert that the email sent to this editor was proper, or do you agree that it's improper to selectively notify people about an RFA based on an expectation of how they'll comment? Also, I'm sorry don't see the logic behind your evidence. Are you saying that if one person does something wrong, other people are also allowed to do something wrong? Are you saying that notifying people that they've been mentioned in an Arbcom case is improper? Jehochman ^Talk 12:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

    It should have been made clearer that in many of the above cases she was the one who "mentioned" them in the ArbCom immediately prior to notifying them. It was plain and simple canvassing in my view. Orderinchaos 12:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

    From the WP:CANVASS page: "Canvassing is the distribution of messages to a targeted audience on a scale that exceeds that of ordinary interpersonal correspondence. Canvassing may be deemed a misuse of Wikipedia resources if: 1) the content of the messages entails bias intended to unfairly skew the outcome of a matter under dispute; 2) the audience is targeted on the basis of partisanship, or other factors favoring a given "side" in a dispute; 3) the scale of the distribution is unreasonably wide or indiscriminate; or 4) the canvassing is otherwise disruptive to the operation of Wikipedia, its users, or contributors. The act of receiving the message is not canvassing by the person receiving the message."

    You might be able to make a case for 3, but even if that's the case, it's a different type of canvassing from what we're discussing here. I don't see how her comments there could be considered in any way to be trying to gain support.--Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 12:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

    By themselves, no. In context of the Arbcom proceeding as it unfolded, with the pages of associated discussion, and especially with regard to timing, in my mind absolutely yes. The worse it got for her, the more she did it, and it was commented on at the time. I should note here that I was neutral in the debate and was not in any way involved, but did read the thing as it progressed and ended up concluding that this person's means and ends, including endless wikilawyering, were thoroughly unreasonable - although her opponents in some cases were not without their own issues, even though they could argue they were acting on an 80% consensus established in their favour repeatedly, which the arbitrators openly acknowledged. The fact they chose not to act says more about them than the candidate in my belief - it was an acknowledgement that the situation was a mess and that no ground was to be gained by punishing anyone for past offences. The sad part is that some of the behaviour I saw then is continuing as recently as two weeks ago. Orderinchaos 13:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

    Fair enough, OIC. Jehochman ^Talk 13:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

    All right then, striking through my comment. Durova^Charge! 14:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

35. Oppose per Ned Scott. Yzak Jule 12:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

    Note to closing bureaucrat: user inactive since March 3 until today, and barely any edits since January. His other edit today consisted in vandalizing another editor's userpage with a personal attack. Phaedriel - 12:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

36. Oppose per many of the above, particularly Wknight94. I have no doubt that Elonka is a good contributor to Wikipedia, but I do not believe she will handle the tools appropriately. -- Merope 13:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
37. Oppose. Elonka is a valuable contributor to our project, but per all the issues raised above, I'm not confident that she would use the tools in a careful and reasonable manner. Krimpet 13:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
38. Oppose - Elonka has improved a lot since last RFA, and deserves to be commended for that. Unfortunately, she didn’t pick it up to an extent that I start to feel comfortable with her having delete and block buttons yet. Ground for that feel is the ongoing - in my view - stubborn unwillingness to trust other people to deal with the actions of DreamGuy,^[93] and it seems ‘s still nurturing that vendetta till personal end goals are reached.^{[94][95][96][97]} Is she going to avoid acting on a rancor when the extra buttons give that extra little bit of persuasive power? I fear an occasional snap into vengeful-authoritative-mode. If adminship wasn’t such a holy long lasting sticky editor privilege, I would take the chance and support. --Van helsing 13:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

    Does that opinion take into consideration that she'll be open to recall? As her conominator I've promised that if I ever saw her misuse the tools and we couldn't work things out through private discussion I'd open an RFC on her myself. Durova^Charge! 15:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

    Yes, I did consider the fact that you’ve asked Elonka to be open to recall, which I initially found a reassuring aspect. It however also has the strange effect of both precluding and validating concerns. In general, being open to recall is a step in the right direction, but it’s still a bit too easy to avoid potential negative consequences. --Van helsing 16:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

    Could I ask you why you're defending her so much here? She should be able to defend herself and stand up for herself. She hasnt responded much on this page to people's concerns, which is another negative point about her. She doesnt respond to concerns. I noticed this at the Kaaba article too. If she cant stand for herself and respond to concerns, she shouldnt be an admin. I dont mean to be hard on anyone but who said being an admin was easy? It demands a lot. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

    Matt, I've conominated her. You've made your position very clear, and if you think I've extended myself too far please demonstrate good faith by striking through loaded question no. 12 and some of your other statements. I don't see anything wrong about discussing recall with an editor since I was the one who offered to initiate a recall action if that were ever necessary. I hope other editors are fully apprised how I mean: I checked out my doubts quite extensively before I decided to back Elonka's candidacy and I doubt very much that she would ever need a recall. Durova^Charge! 17:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

39. oppose for Wikipedia decision making process is about consensus, with AFD is sufficiently transparent that non admins can understand the reasonings and the consequences. In less structured enviroments like WP:CSD the transparency is more opaque we need to be able to trust the actions of admins to reach appropriate conclusions, without oversight. After reading the above comments I can accept that an editor had a COI and reformed. That the editor was party to an arbcom case where Elonka disputed what was consensus, the enforcability of a guideline and also complained of inappropriate harassment and alck lack of good faith. I can recognise this was in December some 7 months ago now and people can and do learn so again I can accept that the editor had reformed from this event. I can even see advising editors that you had mentioned them in an arbcom as more a courtessy than canvassing, though the coutessy as detailed above is to editors she mentioned a insupport of her arguments. Yet come May 2007 Elonka was the one not assuming good faith, was the one harassing DG diff provided by user:Sarah. Ultimately its this continous repetition of not following policy that at the moment sways my opinion. I also respect and trust the judgement of User:WJBscribe as such I recognise that this editor has the ability reform and has taken step towards that end, its just that I dont see enough time since these incidents and other documented incidents to consider other options. Gnangarra 15:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
40. Oppose An admin should know better than arguing for the removal of images as Elonka did on Talk:Kaaba. The community cannot entrust the tools to an editor for whom someone's sentiments trump policy. Beit Or 19:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

    That says it all. Thanks for saying it so succinctly. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 20:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

    Are you saying that all admins should blindly follow rules with out any thoughts of their own? If thats the case I move that we desyop all human admins, and just use bots. Just because one argues for something doesn't mean they will go out and do things on their own if they can.. Elonka does not strike me as a person that will do things without discussions. EnsRedShirt 02:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

    I am not sure how you distinguish "not blindly follow" from "violate". Beit Or 19:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

41. Oppose It took me a while to make up my mind, but this is where I come out. I think Wikipedia would be better off if she was not made an admin. She also has evidenced some of the behaviour patterns of the current admins that I most believe should be desysopped, and I don't want to create another admin that I think should be desysopped. Unusually for me, I am more concerned about the block/unblock buttons (especially the former) than the deletion buttons. GRBerry 21:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

    Comment I'd not thought of it in those terms, but that actually hits the nail right on the nose. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

42. Oppose per SMcCandlish, GRBerry and Beit. I am sorry, I can't support this user at this time.--Sandahl 02:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
43. Strong Oppose. I was actually tempted by some of the Support votes, and have been considering my vote for nearly two days. However, reading Elonka's answers to the questions, her responses to Rebecca on oppose #4 above, the vociferous responses of her supporters to a range of other comments - including allegations of canvassing when Support #105 and #109 all but admit to the same - and the comments of SMcCandlish, Rebecca, Sarah, Orderinchaos, Gnangarra and Wknight94, as well as some recent AfDs in which she has been involved convince me to vote oppose (I did try to read the ArbCom but got thoroughly lost in the detail and gave up - although I believe that the contention that no decision was passed against her has been answered by Orderinchaos's comment-in-reply a few up). The diffs by Hiberniantears (Support #36) genuinely scare me - while I like to assume that everyone can change and become a productive editor, it would seem instead that she has focussed on building an image to pass this RfA. The diff at Karrinyup Shopping Centre on 17 July 2007, just two weeks ago [98], Rouse Hill Town Centre 26 June 2007 [99] suggests to me a person too emotionally unstable and likely to action old grudges and throw incivil allegations rather than assume good faith. The WP:CENSOR issues raised worry me - we are here to build a collection of human knowledge with a wide collection of editors from every cultural background and walk of life, and censorship automatically raises the question, whose truth or whose values apply? Her belief that shopping centres are inherently non-notable (above) while schools are inherently notable [100], and her irrational pursuit of and bad faith towards the Australian editors, does not correspond with someone who will neutrally apply consensus in a dispute involving either of those classes of article or that group of editors (a very large one at that). Her ambitions to amble into a CheckUser role per her answer to Q1 considering the groundswell of community dissatisfaction expressed right here beggars belief. To summarise, I feel very uncomfortable with the prospect of this user getting adminship, and I hope that the closing bureaucrat takes the sheer number of high-quality contributors who have voted "oppose" into account. Zivko85 08:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
44. Oppose - sorry, I am really concerned about some of the wiki-turbulence which I feel has a chance of escalating if this RfA is successful. I do not feel that unsupervised speedy deleting is conducive to 'pedia building either. I admit I haven't read a great many diffs but alot of editors I have great respect for are highly concerned. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
45. Oppose I primarily remember Elonka from the Naming Conventions debate, and reading some of the things above I doubt wether her attitude has improved much since then. If I were involved in a debate where an admin would have to step in, I simply would not want that to be her. Her tendency to simply not consider that she might be wrong is a problem that I cannot overlook. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
46. Oppose - based on her use of Wikipedia for self-promotion and her advocacy on behalf of Bruce Woodcock (who I know from elsewhere on the Internet and who is a destructive troll), I am unable to honestly say I would trust this user with admin tools. Phil Sandifer 19:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

    No, I am not an advocate of Bruce Woodcock. Yes, I worked on his bio. The extent of our interactions are that we run into each other at industry conferences, and exhange the occasional email. But to my knowledge we have never even been members of the same message forums. I did correspond with him about his bio, as I do routinely with subjects for whom I have an email address. I ask them to double-check the facts, and I ask if they can supply a photo for the Commons. If they ask me to make a major addition to their bio, I ask them for a published third-party source. If they ask me to remove something, again, I check for sources, and point out that even if there is information that they do not like, that it is already public knowledge anyway. In any case, I understand that Phil Sandifer feels that the subject of the article is not notable. He placed a prod tag on the article.[101] I removed it.[102] Sandifer then took a perfectly appropriate action, submitting the article to AfD. The community consensus was "Keep."[103] I'm sorry that Phil feels it necessary to oppose my adminship over this issue, but that is of course his right. However, I definitely protest any implication that I behaved improperly. --Elonka 20:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

    Please note that the incident described, and Elonka's last edit to that article, were both in October 2006. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

    Phil, can you tell your side of the Bruce Woodcock story? Elonka's comment in the AfD seems quite measured and I fail to see why the fact that Woodcock is a destructive troll should have anything to do with whether or not an article about him is appropriate. Are you refering to some other incident? Pascal.Tesson 02:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

47. Oppose too many concern, including those raised by Rebecca, Danny, SMcCandlish, Sarah, and GRBerry. Bucketsofg 19:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
48. Weak oppose. Good editor whom I would really, really like to support but there are some things here that worry me, namely the overzealous deletionism noted by Rebecca. Everything else I would be willing to overlook. — CharlotteWebb 23:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
49. Oppose not in particular about deletions--I make allowances knowing I think differently about some. But because of what I see as the extreme defensiveness. There is opposition for many reasons, and the response is to try to battle every statement down, point by point. This is not an orientation towards producing compromise and conciliation, but a course that would inevitably arose further opposition. As an example, I didn't comment at first, because I wanted to see the response to the first few dissents that were raised. I've seen them, and I concur with GRBerry that I do not have confidence with the power to block and unblock. DGG (talk) 03:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
50. Oppose I ran into Elonka on two AfDs in February and am not convinced she is capable of putting policy objectively above her own point of view on notability in particular and her opinions of certain people. She doesn't seem to realise that policy and consensus come above EVERYTHING else on this place and IAR only goes so far. Also if she gets promoted then this AfD has established that a significant portion of the community are likely to also not trust her judgments. DanielT5 04:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
51. Oppose - I don't trust editors who think it's okay to write articles about themselves and their relatives and then put links to their website across many Wikipedia pages. MessedRocker (talk) 06:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

    This is a rather serious accusation, so I went and checked the first ten (out of 128) non-user/project space occurrences as a sample: (1) at Talk:GEnie, Elonka adds link as support to a content discussion on 17 July 2007; (2) at GemStone IV, link added by Caranorn, (3) at D'Agapeyeff cipher, link added by BrokenSegue; (4) at Binary Revolution Radio, link added by Cidviscous; (5) at Kryptos, link added by Elonka in February 2006; (6) at University High School (Los Angeles, California), link added by Miss Mondegreen; (7) at The Da Vinci Code, link added by Elonka in February 2006; (8) at Stanley Dunin, link added by Elonka in February 2007; (9) at Jim Payne (folk singer), link added by Elonka in February 2006; and, finally, (10) at Elonka Dunin, the latest link touched by Elonka in February 2006. Note that this is #24 in the list due the links within Elonka's userspace, as well as to various AFDs and RFAs and other user's pages. In summation, of the sample of ten, four links were added by other users, five were added by Elonka over a year ago (and survived the interim) and one was added by Elonka recently on a talk page as support for a new user who was claiming special knowledge of the subject without third-party references. I'm not particularly excited in my support for this candidate, but I think that this objection is both so ill-natured and so lame it probably merits an apology to Elonka. - BanyanTree 09:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

    I second that. The accusation is not supported by facts and I have to wonder if you have read this RfA discussion because the issue has been addressed. Pascal.Tesson 12:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

    Addressed yes, resolved no. For example, I still see a shiny link to her book promoting page in Dorabella Cipher, added at the time by Elonka as being a "reference", after the article was already written by other editors. Elonka is not prevented here by COI to remove these, and I honestly expect Elonka to screen those EL’s a bit further than the ones being pointed out to her. --Van helsing 13:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

    Elonka, for the love of his noodly self, would you please go through all the external links to your stuff one more time and make sure you delete any that don't belong or are even questionable. WP:COI expressly permits this kind of editing, and as an administrator you would obviously want to maintain the highest possible standards of compliance with our SPAM and COI policies, guidelines and traditions. Jehochman ^Talk 15:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

    Van helsing, thanks, and you're right, that link wasn't helpful to the article. I have removed it.[104] If you (or anyone else) sees any links that are questionable, please feel free to remove them. --Elonka 18:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

52. Oppose I just do not feel comfortable with granting her admin rights; the only (kind of) contact I had with her was about the naming and renaming of the article Voßstrasse, admittedly some time ago, but I kind of kept returning to watch Elonkas contributions from time to time when her name popped up on my watchlist, and, as I said above, it just doesn't feel right. Sorry. Lectonar 15:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
53. I have serious doubts about her judgment, and I have even stronger doubts about her methods of dealing with people that disagree with her. >Radiant< 15:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
54. Oppose After reading this whole disucssion and swinging between support and oppose I am reluctantly opposing. The concerns going back to last year do not bother me as I believe a contributor should be given the chance to improve from previous errors. However the handling of this RFA in particular, such as the questions from SMcCandlish which I have seen previous admin candidates answer well does not give me sufficient confidence to trust this user with the admin tools. Davewild 18:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
55. Strong oppose As per Neil and Rebecca.--NAHID 19:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
56. Oppose, mostly per Yaksha. I was only peripherally involved in the Naming Conventions ArbCom, but I followed it very closely from the beginning. The whole process was extremely complicated, but I hope that won’t stop people from diving in and taking a look. I recommend the statement by Yaksha as a good place to start, with most of the main issues summed up. Yaksha's statement is cited in the committee's Findings of fact to show that consensus had been reached in this issue. Although she seems to have learned from her COI problems, I haven’t seen anything to indicate that she’s learned from her experiences with that ArbCom. --Brian Olsen 20:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
57. Strong Oppose. While I agree with alot of concerns raised above I didn't really see the need to weigh in at first. Then I started to comb though the canidates history and contrary to alot of other editors I found myself in the position of opposing this canidate not for wiki-ideology but out of simple, personal distaste and distrust. That might come off as unfair as I've never meet the woman but I can't lie, she just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I apologise if this stance offends but I just don't want to see her with the admin tools, she strikes me as manipulative and ego driven right down to her user page. NeoFreak 23:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

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 settled the debate for her. A few other points that still stick out for me:

• WP:COI issues are still not settled to my satisfaction. Articles for various family members of hers are still sourced with her own original research (http://www.elonka.com, etc.) despite her being told about it: Antoni Dunin, Rodryg Dunin, Stanley Dunin, Raphael Kalinowski, Edward Werner, Eduard Strasburger, Agnieszka Baranowska, Edmund Taczanowski. Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs) himself stubbed one of the articles but others remain. Also linked to her own page at Alfred Niezychowski, Peter Zika and Elsie Ivancich Dunin. Many of these links to her own site were put in place by her and remain to this day.
• Had fair use images on a user page until they were removed by another user just a few months ago, clear violation of WP:FUC.
• Misunderstands notability guidelines as evidenced by her tagging The Dillinger Escape Plan as non-notable, a band that has over a dozen albums available at Amazon!
• Back to the RFAR days, she engaged in move blocking (making negligible modifications to redirects to prevent return moves). Viewable in deleted edits at Everybody Hates Hugo, Live Together, Die Alone, The Glass Ballerina, Further Instructions, Not in Portland. Nasty behavior unbecoming of an admin.

—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^Charge! 19:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

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 [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC) Changed to oppose. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Remaining neutral pending answer to at least one of my questions. The first one is more important to me; the second is more of a rather basic test, and any editor with 30K edits of experience would be very unlikely to fail it. <shrug> — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 12:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Neutral Clearly a prolific editor, and I look forward to welcoming Elonka to the fold and seeing her grow as a prolific administrator. However, with regard to my question above, her tagging of The Dillinger Escape Plan as non-notable and related edits to the TDEP talk page, I'm a little worried about some inconsistencies in her application of WP:V and WP:RS. A band with a large catalogue of popular releases, notable tours etc. gets notability and fact tags, but an unsourced biography section in a BLP article requires no such action because the subject of the article (who previously took an active interest in editing the article) affirms the information to be true? An admin should be keen to demand sources in any BLP article and tag or remove unverified info accordingly, even if they are the subject of the article. Deiz talk 07:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Changed to oppose. Deiz talk 15:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Are referring to a notability tag placed in November 2006? [105] If so, it's been 8 months, look at Phaedriel's research for more recent stuff. As for editing Elonka Dunin: she got criticized when she edited it, and now you're criticizing her because she's not editing it. (This is what I mean she has put up with a lot: she can't win.) WP:BLP allows editing by the subject to remove false information, but interpreting it as demanding the subject remove true information she doesn't object to is a bit much. Anyway, I looked at the article, and it seems that everything controversial in there is well cited; if there is something you think needs citation, please discuss it on that article talk page and I will source it or remove it myself. This should be about User:Elonka, the editor, not the article subject. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• I'd look for any potential admin to insist on visible sources in any BLP article, particularly the "Biography" section of an article that has proved contentious. Factoring this in, I'm nowhere near oppose but not quite moved to support. Deiz talk 16:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• Hi Deiz. Administrators need to avoid using the tools in any situation where they potentially are not neutral. The third paragraph of Wikipedia:Administrators states, "administrators acting in this role are neutral; they do not have any direct involvement in the issues they are helping people with." Because Elonka is not neutral and is directly involved in Elonka Dunin as the subject of that article, I do not think Elonka should use her position as an admin to insist on visible sources in the contentious BLP Elonka Dunin article. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 18:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• Nonsense. WP:BLP and WP:V are policy; it would not be any form of conflict of interest at all for Elonka to insist that policy be followed in any article, including Elonka Dunin, and this can be done without editing it, e.g. by flagging problems on the talk page, and taking the article to WP:AFD if they are not addressed. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for that, but no admin powers are required here. It is entirely possible for an editor to neutrally edit an article they are referenced in, it just doesn't happen very often. All that is required here is the addition of sources - no content need be created, edited or removed if the info is verifiable. If Elonka knows where to find them, I don't think she should wait to be asked. Deiz talk 01:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

1. Neutral In an alternative time stream, I would have written something along the lines of "support, I thought this person already was an Admin", but the last time I stepped into a discussion about Adminship so that much enthusiasm, I ended up screwing the pooch. I'll just limit myself this time to asking everyone to carefully examinine the evidence & participate accordingly. -- llywrch 22:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

   I appreciate your position, but if there's any information that I can offer to you to help set your mind at ease, please let me know.  :) --Elonka 18:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

   Neutralchanged to support The Elonka Dunin article sure seems like "vanispam" to me. Probably about half of us in this discussion could have a biography of comparable notability. User:Elonka seems to have ignored the bio for a long time, and because of that I won't oppose, but I think having such a hagiographic article like this about one of our administrators reflects poorly on the integrity of the entire project. --JayHenry 18:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

   Do you have any suggestions on how I can better address this? My bio is definitely a dilemma. When I was new to Wikipedia, I made mistakes, no question about that. Now that I know Wikipedia policies and guidelines better, I see things in a different light. I guess one thing it does do though, is give me extra insight to both sides of the fence. When I help out at the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard, though I tend to see things more from a "protect Wikipedia" standpoint, I also remember what it was like for someone who was new to Wikipedia and unfamiliar with the culture here. I'd like to think that this insight helps me to communicate better with both sides. --Elonka 18:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

   Yeah, you're right. It's ancient history and unfair to oppose or even go neutral on these grounds alone. --JayHenry 01:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

   Neutral pending answers to questions 9 and 12. --John 18:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC) (changed to oppose)

2. Neutral Just too much information and arguments from both sides to be able to truly decide. Jmlk17 22:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

   Analysis paralysis? :) Haukur 12:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

   I appreciate that this nom is getting very large very quickly! If you (or anyone) would like to talk to me directly to help make up your own mind about me, please feel free to contact me through any other communication medium you'd like: Email, IRC, IMs, my talkpage, or anywhere else that we can talk in a less chaotic environment.  :) --Elonka 18:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

   Neutral - Can't decide on this one. --Tom 19:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

   Did you have any specific questions that might help make up your mind? I'm sure that for every editor who posts here as a neutral, there are probably others who feel similarly, so feel free to ask! :) --Elonka 21:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

   Hi Elonka, no nothing specific, thank you. I know we butted heads maybe a year ago(?) over very minor stuff that was not really a biggie. I might have even voted oppose the first time around but now I am on the "support side of neutral". It seems that folks really hang onto disagreements for too long and hold it against editors for too long as well. Anyways, good luck regardless of how this turns out! --Tom 15:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

   Changing to support --Tom 16:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

3. Neutral, leaning towards rather not. Elonka is a fine contributor. However, in case of admins, personal virtues are equally important as a nice cv of great articles. And when it comes dealing with other contributors I find Elonka's behaviour highly unstable. At times she's an open-minded, friendly and great person to cooperate with. However, I've also seen the other face of Elonka, the one that was extremely unpleasant and forced her to create conflicts and wage one-man crusades against the community just for the sake of it (like in the case of the Polish wikipedians' notice board). In short, giving her a broom and a bucket could be a nice idea, but this would mean that she'd also get the punitive powers, which I'd rather avoid. //Halibutt 00:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

   I have not been active at that noticeboard for a year, and haven't posted there at all in 2007. Is there any recent behavior on my part that you have concerns about? --Elonka 02:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

   Not really. However, your behaviour in the past has shown that you might have problems controlling yourself in the future. Better safe than sorry, I believe. //Halibutt 06:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

   Hmmm. Halibutt, as you should remember, I was quite involved in that conflict - but as Elonka said, it was a year ago. I actually wish she would contribute to the board, so we could judge all has been resolved and benefit from more comments - alas, if the problem is defined as 'she caused problems', the fact that she hasn't for the past year should prove we all make mistakes but some of us, like Elonka, learn how not to repeat them. Hence, why should she be penalized for seeking adminship due to a year-old quarrel? A year ago I might have opposed her nom; today I see no reason to. Should we bring up the old noticeboard issue next year? Five years from now? In the 22nd century? :)I I hope not.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  11:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

   I think his criticism is of personal virtues, not personal behaviour. While people are capable of change, I'm not seeing evidence of that change. In my opinion, the user is self-restrained rather than self-controlled at the present stage, and I've never seen her acknowledge specific wrongdoing, especially on the matter leading to the ArbCom which concluded earlier this year, instead making considerable excuses in various forums for her actions in violation of policy or consensus (often blaming others for these or, as Zivko pointed out, showing incredible bad faith towards entire categories of editors). Orderinchaos 22:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

   That's precisely what I meant. And the fact that a year has passed doesn't really convince me. Besides, it's a common practice to critisize people during RfA for their long-forgotten deeds. Sorry, but this is how RfAs work: better safe than sorry. Finally, note that I voted neutral and did not oppose, even though I feel that she should not become an admin. However, I don't want to stand in the way of those who believe otherwise. Over and out. //Halibutt 18:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

4. Neutral Too many reasons listed by those that oppose. Rather not per Halibutt above. ~ Wikihermit 02:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

   I am open to constructive criticism, if you can think of ways that I can further improve? --Elonka 04:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)