ATTENTION: Your nomination will be considered "malformed" and may be reverted if you do not follow the instructions at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/nominate. -->
ATTENTION: Your nomination will be considered "malformed" and may be reverted if you do not follow the instructions at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/nominate. -->
Note: Although this page is under extended confirmed protection, non-extended confirmed editors may still comment on individual requests, which are located on subpages of this page.
If you are new to participating in a request for adminship, or are not sure how to gauge the candidate, then kindly go through this mini guide for RfA voters before you participate.
One trial run of an experimental process of administrator elections took place in October 2024.
About administrators
The additional features granted to administrators are considered to require a high level of trust from the community. While administrative actions are publicly logged and can be reverted by other administrators just as other edits can be, the actions of administrators involve features that can affect the entire site. Among other functions, administrators are responsible for blocking users from editing, controlling page protection, and deleting pages. However, they are not the final arbiters in content disputes and do not have special powers to decide on content matters, except to enforce the community consensus and the Arbitration Commitee rulings by protecting or deleting pages and applying sanctions to users.
The community grants administrator access to trusted users, so nominees should have been on Wikipedia long enough for people to determine whether they are trustworthy. Administrators are held to high standards of conduct because other editors often turn to them for help and advice, and because they have access to tools that can have a negative impact on users or content if carelessly applied.
Nomination standards
The only formal prerequisite for adminship is having an extended confirmed account on Wikipedia (500 edits and 30 days of experience).[1] However, the community usually looks for candidates with much more experience and those without are generally unlikely to succeed at gaining adminship. The community looks for a variety of factors in candidates and discussion can be intense. To get an insight of what the community is looking for, you could review some successful and some unsuccessful RfAs, or start an RfA candidate poll.
If you are unsure about nominating yourself or another user for adminship, you may first wish to consult a few editors you respect to get an idea of what the community might think of your request. There is also a list of editors willing to consider nominating you. Editors interested in becoming administrators might explore adoption by a more experienced user to gain experience. They may also add themselves to Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls; a list of names and some additional information are automatically maintained at Wikipedia:List of administrator hopefuls. The RfA guide and the miniguide might be helpful, while Advice for RfA candidates will let you evaluate whether or not you are ready to be an admin.
Nominations
To nominate either yourself or another user for adminship, follow these instructions. If you wish to nominate someone else, check with them before making the nomination page. Nominations may only be added by the candidate or after the candidate has signed the acceptance of the nomination.
All Wikipedians—including those without an account or not logged in ("anons")—are welcome to comment and ask questions in an RfA. Numerated (#) "votes" in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections may only be placed by editors with an extended confirmed account.[2] Other comments are welcomed in the general comments section at the bottom of the page, and comments by editors who are not extended confirmed may be moved to this section if mistakenly placed elsewhere.
If you are relatively new to contributing to Wikipedia, or if you have not yet participated on many RfAs, please consider first reading "Advice for RfA voters".
There is a limit of two questions per editor, with relevant follow-ups permitted. The two-question limit cannot be circumvented by asking questions that require multiple answers (e.g. asking the candidate what they would do in each of five scenarios). The candidate may respond to the comments of others. Certain comments may be discounted if there are suspicions of fraud; these may be the contributions of very new editors, sockpuppets, or meatpuppets. Please explain your opinion by including a short explanation of your reasoning. Your input (positive or negative) will carry more weight if supported by evidence.
To add a comment, click the "Voice your opinion" link for the candidate. Always be respectful towards others in your comments. Constructive criticism will help the candidate make proper adjustments and possibly fare better in a future RfA attempt. Note that bureaucrats have been authorized by the community to clerk at RfA, so they may appropriately deal with comments and !votes which they deem to be inappropriate. You may wish to review arguments to avoid in adminship discussions. Irrelevant questions may be removed or ignored, so please stay on topic.
The RfA process attracts many Wikipedians and some may routinely oppose many or most requests; other editors routinely support many or most requests. Although the community currently endorses the right of every Wikipedian with an account to participate, one-sided approaches to RfA voting have been labeled as "trolling" by some. Before commenting or responding to comments (especially to Oppose comments with uncommon rationales or which feel like baiting) consider whether others are likely to treat it as influential, and whether RfA is an appropriate forum for your point. Try hard not to fan the fire. Remember, the bureaucrats who close discussions have considerable experience and give more weight to constructive comments than unproductive ones.
Most nominations will remain active for a minimum of seven days from the time the nomination is posted on this page, during which users give their opinions, ask questions, and make comments. This discussion process is not a vote (it is sometimes referred to as a !vote, using the computer science negation symbol). At the end of the discussion period, a bureaucrat will review the discussion to see whether there is a consensus for promotion. Consensus at RfA is not determined by surpassing a numerical threshold, but by the strength of rationales presented. In practice, most RfAs above 75% support pass.
In December 2015 the community determined that in general, RfAs that finish between 65 and 75% support are subject to the discretion of bureaucrats (so, therefore, almost all RfAs below 65% will fail). However, a request for adminship is first and foremost a consensus-building process.[3] In calculating an RfA's percentage, only numbered Support and Oppose comments are considered. Neutral comments are ignored for calculating an RfA's percentage, but they (and other relevant information) are considered for determining consensus by the closing bureaucrat.
In nominations where consensus is unclear, detailed explanations behind Support or Oppose comments will have more impact than positions with no explanations or simple comments such as "yep" and "no way".[4] A nomination may be closed as successful only by bureaucrats. In exceptional circumstances, bureaucrats may extend RfAs beyond seven days or restart the nomination to make consensus clearer. They may also close nominations early if success is unlikely and leaving the application open has no likely benefit, and the candidate may withdraw their application at any time for any reason.
If uncontroversial, any user in good standing can close a request that has no chance of passing in accordance with WP:SNOW or WP:NOTNOW. Do not close any requests that you have taken part in, or those that have even a slim chance of passing, unless you are the candidate and you are withdrawing your application. In the case of vandalism, improper formatting, or a declined or withdrawn nomination, non-bureaucrats may also delist a nomination. A list of procedures to close an RfA may be found at WP:Bureaucrats. If your nomination fails, then please wait for a reasonable period of time before renominating yourself or accepting another nomination. Some candidates have tried again and succeeded within three months, but many editors prefer to wait considerably longer before reapplying.
In the 2024 RfA review, the community authorized designated administrators and bureaucrats to act as monitors to moderate discussion at RfA. The monitors can either self-select when an RfA starts, or can be chosen ahead of time by the candidate privately. Monitors may not be involved with the candidate, may not nominate the candidate, may not !vote in the RfA, and may not close the RfA, although if the monitor is a bureaucrat they may participate in the RfA's bureaucrat discussion. In addition to normal moderation tools, monitors may remove !votes from the tally or from the discussion entirely at their discretion when the !vote contains significant policy violations that must be struck or otherwise redacted and provides no rational basis for its position – or when the comment itself is a blockable offense. The text of the !vote can still be struck and/or redacted as normal. Monitors are encouraged to review the RfA regularly. Admins and bureaucrats who are not monitors may still enforce user conduct policies and guidelines at RfA as normal.[5]
Eluchil404 (talk·contribs) - Eluchil404 has been with Wikipedia for over a year now; he filed a self-nomination for the sysop tools last year but withdrew early when he realized he was being premature. Despite that early 'haste', he carried himself in that discussion with courtesy and clear communication. I began to look over his contributions earlier this spring when I was browsing for users in just this situation: premature or barely failed RFAs that showed an ability to pass in time. I believe strongly that the project will benefit from granting Eluchil404 the tools at this time, and invite you to look over his contributions and support him along with me. -- nae'blis03:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:I accept the nomination and thank the nominator for his kind words. Eluchil40418:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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:Closing AfD's and MfD's, using the bit to look at deleted revisions to inform my comments at Deletion review, fighting CSD backlogs, deleting expired prods, and other places (e.g. WP:RM) as I have time and knowledge. While I will probably not be hugely active, I think another set of eyes at CSD would be helpful and that the time I have spent reading (and to a lesser extent commenting) at AfD and Deletion review, gives me a good grasp of what the speedy criteria mean in practice, as well as theory. Eluchil40418:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A:There are a few things listed on my userpage. The one that probably excited me most was when WP:NOTFILM was tagged as a guideline in line with consensus. Though the current text is not very close to my original version, the fact that others found my page useful enough to edit and improve is very encouraging to me. Work there also gave me some insight into the process of finding consensus language and dispute resolution. On the article side there are little more than stubs (though plenty of wikignoming other articles) Vatta's War is the longest though I can't take credit for the recent expansion. I am particularly pleased by the fact that all the articles I have written recently are well sourced. I believe that reliable, nontrivial sources are important for wikipedia's reliablilty and credibility. Eluchil40418:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 hae been in a few since my last nomination, still mostly minor. The one at Wikipedia talk:Notability (films) was probably the most intense and stressful for me. In general when I experience wikistress, I take a break to relax and remember that it is just an encyclopedia and not the end of the world. In conflicts I seek additional opinions in hopes of finding consensus because I feel that two people with strong feelings are more likely to end up in a shouting match than reach a compromise if left to there own devises. A good example of this is Wikipedia:Semi-protecting policy pages where after my tagging as rejected was reverted (also notable as the only time I ever reverted back to my preferred version diff I went to the talk page where consensus on tagging was found. Eluchil40418:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4.(from nae'blis) Here's a little homework: pick one entry at candidates for speedy deletion that you think has been improperly filed, explain what you find to be wrong with the situation, and then make the edits needed to correct it (to the extent possible without the extra tools, of course).
A:After looking at a couple of marginal ones Ajijic seemed to clearly not be a proper speedy. It was only slightly spamming (which was the reason given) and articles about real places (which this is) are rarely deleted. I removed the tag and did some basic wikification. The next step is to find reliable sources which are not immediately apparent via google. Eluchil40418:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Eluchil404 before commenting.
Discussion
Support
Support. User has enough experience with policy and a fair amount of time active. No reason to expect abuse of tools. I beat the nominator to voting! Bart133(t)(c)18:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This user seems to have dropped off in participation of late, and that bothers me slightly. However, his edit history is excellent and so is his communication with others. I see nothing to make me believe he shouldn't get the mop. Trusilver19:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I reviewed all the answers, and I was impressed by the candidate's dedication, forthrightness, and willingness to learn. In particular, the answer to Q4 shows that the candidate will actually read the article before pressing the delete buttion. Another article is saved, and hopefully, another admin is added to the roster. ShalomHello20:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I've seen you around making useful and thoughtful contributions, and a look though your history shows much of the same. Good answers to the questions (esp #4) too.--Kubigula(talk)20:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - No evidence of problems. Concerns raised by Matthew are nowhere near significant enough to merit an oppose, or even neutral. WaltonOne14:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Can clearly be trusted with the tools. Re Matthew's comments: the debate over whether someone needs the admin tools has been had. Whether or not a candidate seems to need the tools, if they seem trustworthy then they should have them. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 14:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support After reviewing your AfD comments and speedy deletion tags, I trust that you have the knowledge in these areas to make appropriate administrative decisions. Granted, I had to go back to Novermber 2006 to review your last 15 CSD tags, but they were all accurate. LeeboT/C17:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I have researched your edits over the past 6 months or so. I am quite pleased with your demeanor in discussions. Such calmness is a needed quality for an admin and I support you fully. JodyByak, yak, yak18:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WTF? Opossing because he uploaded some book covers over a year ago, seriously Matthew you are becoming so disruptive, I never seen you supporting an RFA everJarandawat's sup21:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's right, play the "disruptive card" (note: I'm the one discussing, not simply voting.) Your simply slapping your lips because I opposed somebody you'd like to pass. Oh, and I recall I supported at least two RfA/B last month -- so don't give me that :).
Secondly the images failed policy when they were uploaded and they continue to fail policy, so yea, maybe it was a year ago, he could of still fixed it. Matthew21:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair my level of activity, especially since the new year, has been quite low for an admin candidate. And it may change again depending on my life and work schedules. However, I feel that I am active enough (especially in terms of reading though not commenting on discussions) that I can make a net positive contribution as an admin, or I would not have accepted the nomination. Eluchil40421:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don;t generally oppose on the basis of user edits before, but I am quite concerned by your answer that you activity is low, and likely to remain so. How can we judge on the basis of what you read, rather than what you do? I do not see how with limited activity you can keep up with consensus and discussions. For example, are you aware of any current discussions regarding the notability of university departments in general? That's one of the areas you have interest in. DGG (talk) 22:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.
Boricuaeddie (talk·contribs) - Hello, fellow editors. After days of hard thinking, I've decided that I believe I would serve the community better if I had administrator buttons. Because of this I have decided to request adminship. I joined Wikipedia on March 7 and have accumulated over 4000 edits. I have been an active vandal-fighter and have served both the community and encyclopedia part of Wikipedia. I hope that the community will evaluate my contributions and make the correct decision. --Boricuaeddie15:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:I'm Boricuaeddie and I approve this message. I am obviously too immature and rude to be an administrator, so I withdraw my RfA. I have been harassed because of this RfA, and my privacy is in jeopardy, so I see no point in continuing this request. --Boricuaeddie16:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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: There are many things I would be willing to participate in if made administrator, so I'll just list them:
1.) Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism- I have much experience in vandalism reversion, and I often see AIV backlogged, so I would be very active here. Although I only have made 17 reports to AIV, I believe I understand Wikipedia:Vandalism, as I have created a a whole page dedicated to fighting it. I also believe I understand the the blocking policy, as I have reported several IP’s and most have been blocked.
4.) Wikipedia:Deletion debates- This will be my priority if granted administrator rights. I have participated in countless Afd’s and several MfD’s. I have also already closed many deletion discussions, and I believe I have closed all correctly. Some examples: debates I closed with a keep result: [1], [2]. With a delete result: [3], [4]. With a speedy delete result: [5], [6]. With a redirect result: [7], [8]. With a no consensus result: [9]. Please note: I'm sure some may find it surprising that I have closed AfD debates as delete, but please note that during the time I closed those discussions, this was the version of the deletion process guideline, which permitted non-admins to close AfD's as delete.
5.) Images- I have had several images deleted, and I would like to continue with images that need to be deleted. I also like to move images to the Wikimedia Commons, and I would like to delete images on Commons ready for deletion (list courtesy of MetsBot).
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: As a Catholic, I was taught to be humble, so I feel a little uncomfortable answering this question, but, for the sake of those not familiar with my work, I'll answer it. As a Metapedian, I believe that Wikipedia is both an encyclopedia and a community, and I work to make both better. Because of this, instead of creating articles myself, I work at WP:AFC, so that I help build an encyclopedia by creating articles and making sure inappropriate articles are not introduced, but I also serve the community part of Wikipedia by helping other users contribute to the encyclopedia. I also help counter systematic bias and my country by helping improve Wikipedia's coverage of it by helping out at WikiProject Puerto Rico, where I help other users get Puerto Ricans and other Latin Americans the coverage they deserve. I think that those are my best 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: Well, I have been in many conflicts, but not many of them have caused me stress, as I try to control myself when in a conflict. The last conflict that really caused me stress was the blocking of Rlest (talk·contribs), formerly known as User:Tellyaddict, User:The Sunshine Man, and User:Qst. Before the incident, he was one of the nicest persons around. He was a very productive and active editor. The problem is that he has a temper. Twice already, as both Qst and Rlest, he has suddenly lost control and started attacking users and calling them "fu**ing idiots" and such, and has said that he's leaving and has been blocked. The problem is that after he did that, he asked for forgiveness and said that he would come back. That caused me stress, because there was a discussion at ANI about whether to let him come back or to ban him for his constant anger outbursts. I did not know whether I wanted him to come back or to ban him, because there is no excuse for saying such horrible things about one's brothers, but he was a very productive user. In the end I decided to do what I do with every conflict; assume good faith, forgive and forget, and move on.
4. (Optional Supplementary Question) Can you explain the difference between a Community Ban and an Indefinate Block? Mike3316:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: Well, WP:BAN#Community_ban says that a user banned by the community is a user that has been indef blocked an no one is willing to unblock him/her or has objected to the block. An indef block is a way to enforce a ban, as stated at WP:BLOCK#Enforcing_bans.
A: BLP is a policy that basically states that one must be careful when adding information about a living person. It also states that every piece of information added about a living person must be written from a neutral point of view and must be accompanied by verifiable and reliable sources. It also states that any material added that does not meet these requirements may be removed immediately.
6. Optional question from After Midnight0001 I would like to see more detail than you expressed in your answer to question #3 above. Can you please give one of more examples of a conflict that you have actually been involved in and how you handled it. Preferably this would be an editing dispute rather than a situation that you observed within the community that caused you stress. I see nothing in the link that you provided to the Rlest discussion that indicates that you had any participation whatsoever in that matter. --After Midnight000119:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: I think another example of a conflict I had is the one mentioned by A Train. On July 11, Cerejotaaccused me of uploading a copyvio image. I felt a little stressed, as I knew the user did not understand Wikipedia:Non-free content, but he refused to acknowledge it. I constantly repeated and provided proof to show him that the fair use policy permitted the use of that image, but he did not give up. In the end, Will manged to get the user to understand that the image was not a copyvio, and the problem was solved. I do appreciate Cerejota's actions, as I'm sure they were in good faith, and because they helped me show my understanding of the policies regarding images.
Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Boricuaeddie before commenting.
Support I have only run across him a few times outside of RfA. But the times I have seen him he has struck me as rational, civil and having the rare ability to make sense even when everyone around him is not. Trusilver16:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support - Well he is a fine user, he is very active on AIV and AFC and even though he bothers Phaedriel a lot, he is stiill a very good editor..top notch..he had problems recently but I don't think that is significant enough to oppose him on and well everyone has their ups and downs.. I hope he stays that energetic in times to come..Good Luck.--Cometstyles17:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Strong Support I have known Boricaeddie for a long time. I have seen his work. He is a great editor, who is always civil with other Wikipedians. I strongly believe he deserves the mop. As in the words of Runewiki777, "FINALLY"! Politics rule17:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support – an excellent contributor, with a top-notch track record and great participation in XfDs (always a good sign). I've every confidence that Boricuaeddie can both be trusted with the sysop tools, and has demonstrated that he'll use them. Best of luck! ~ Anthøny17:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Eddie knows what this project is all about and knows how to facilitate it. Will make a good sysop therefore. —«ANIMUM»18:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I like what I've seen from this editor, and I've seen his edits around. The concerns brought up by the opposition are enough to at least consider, and I think the candidate could use a little improvement in that field, but it's not enough to worry me. ɑʀкʏɑɴ19:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support despite some points of concern raised in the oppose section. The answer to Q1 and my familiarity with the candidate at XFD show sufficient maturity to handle admin work. ShalomHello19:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support with some comments. Eddie, I wish you had waited another month or so, in order to provide further depth to your contributions and thus head of oppose comments. Please also remember that expanded reasoning tends to sit better with other editors, as opposed to this. However substantial reporting to WP:UFA, excellent vandal reversion and WP:CSD work. I personally think you are just a bit to keen to get the buttons (remember - this doesn't pay, and adminship is not a trophy) but that takes away nothing from the fact that I believe you would use them wisely. At the end of the day, the issue is trust, and nothing from personal interaction or the contributions leads me to not trust Eddie with the tools. Best wishes. Pedro | Chat 20:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I have watched Boricuaeddie really develop as a user. I'm quite impressed with what I have seen him contrib so far. In fact I was planning to nom him tomorrow, but I guess he went ahead and nommed himself. Anyway, best of luck Eddie. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 21:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support My personal experience with this user revealed a very trustworthy, civil, friendly, versatile and hard working user. Has just enough experience to be given access to the tools. Can do no harm with them as he promptly acknowledges, fixes and learns from any mistake.--Húsönd23:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - First impression tells me that he's a supportive fellow wikipedian. Going to be (or already is) an "older brother" in wiki-world. Dragonbite03:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support. Firstly, Eddie deserves the tools. He has a passion to build and keep the encyclopedia here for all. With great determination and skill, he will make the sysop position look easy. Full stop. Secondly, he has a great and friendly heart that he will express to any user he comes across. If you don't support Eddie, I don't know who else you would. In a few words, a great editor that needs the sysop position. Good luck Eddie. — Etalkbots10:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I believe someone else pointed out that walking away from Wikipedia shows an essential ability to step back, exercise restraint, and collect your thoughts. While his departing message initially said his absence would be indefinite, I think there has been a time or two (or twelve) when we've all threw our hands up in the air in frustration, and I think that would be the case in especially trying circumstances (having to insist you're not a sock puppet is, I imagine, never fun). That being said, he does a lot of work here, and he's trustworthy and able to deal with stress in a way that won't harm others or the project. So, good luck. user:j talk 11:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. An enthusiastic editor with much to offer the project, but when a dispute about a fair use image in user space just a few weeks ago [10], led him to pack it in and go home. This demonstrates some unfamiliarity with policy and a tendency towards histrionics that is not becoming in an administrator. ATraintalk17:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that that incident was not the one that caused the WikiBreak. If you see here, you'll see that I was ultimately correct and the user apologized. Doesn't that show knowledge of policy? --Boricuaeddie17:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say, the Oppose above seems a little unfair - I think Boricuaeddie has satisfactorily explained his reasons for temporarily leaving the project. And it's certainly more mature to take a wikibreak than to get further embroiled in disputes, as a rule. WaltonOne17:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected with regard to the fair use issue, my apologies, Eddie. But I my concern stands. I sympathize completely with having your fill of Wikipedia from time to time and wanting to walk away. For me though, leaving an "I'm leaving forever" message, returning, and then self-nominating for adminship all in the span of three weeks doesn't inspire confidence in me. This is nothing personal, it's just an oppose. ATraintalk18:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. Thank you for your concern. I knew there was nothing good about leaving and then coming back. <joke>Well, at least it got me 100 more points at the Wikipediholic test :-)</joke> --Boricuaeddie18:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I do not have power hunger. I had several standing offers to nominate me, but I hate to ask people to nominate me, so I decided to do it myself. --Boricuaeddie18:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose You are a very skilled and dedicated editor. However, the departure and return in such a short period for an editor who has been registered for what is also a short period of time (though with a tremendous edit count) does not suggest a temperment that will suit you in the type of situation you will face as an admin. I myself had a similar problem regarding temperment in my own RFA, and would suggest learning from it (which it appears you have), and establishing a longer record demonstrating that you have matured (maybe a couple of months). I will support you in the future if you demonstrate you can keep at it. Hiberniantears18:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Oppose Great editor, civil, friendly. However, it is my feeling that the user is too young to be an administrator here. While there is a certain amount of anonymity, administrators are much higher profile and sometimes subject to harassment outside of the Wikipedia environment. This is not something that I want a user who is still under guardianship to be accountable for. I'm not opposed to minors being sysops- we had a b'crat who was 14. It is just my opinion that the user is not old enough to have the "maturity" that an admin should have. Absolutely nothing personal or anything that is within the user's control. I just don't feel comfortable with the age. Keegantalk18:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I follow this rationale. Sadly, we've had admins that are well into the age of majority that have not demonstrated the maturity of their years and conversely, young teens that have shown great maturity for their years. Still, it is your opinion, after all, and entitled to it - Alison☺19:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I was taking pains to express that it is my personal view that I do not want young teens as administrators and that's also why I put "maturity" in quotations- there are immature adult admins. Clearly this is my opinion and I do not wish to see a pile on oppose based on what I've said. A fine user that is a couple years too young for my comfort. Keegantalk19:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe it is as well. As I said above there is absolutely nothing you can do and it is not your fault you're young. My opinion on a minimum age for an administrator comes solely from my personal experience on the job and in no way reflects distrust or immaturity. Who knows, this RfA may succeed anyway. Keep up the good work. Keegantalk02:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer to answer for myself. No, I would not have. I probably would not have participated. Paradoxical? Yes. It goes to the nature of what we reveal about ourselves. Fair game question. My opinion on appropriate ages are the same as <edit> my opinion on administrators and </edit>the use of open proxies: there's nothing I can do about what I don't know, but when I know, I speak. Keegantalk03:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Boricuaeddie has done some valuable work in the few short months he's been here. But building an encyclopedia hasn't been a large part of that work. An example of this is that of his less than 1,000 edits to the main space, many of them are tagging, stub sorting and vandalism reverts. I have come to believe, though it is a generally unpopular belief at RfA, that a demonstrated interest in encyclopedia building is essential for an effective administrator. I am not unyielding in this belief -- someone who has made hundreds of reports to AIV over many months, or someone who has done truly exceptional "metapedian" work, for example. But I don't see that with this very new user. Respectfully, I oppose, until a later date when the user has had more experience. --JayHenry18:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Does not understand WP:BLP, per his statement above that "every piece of information added about a living person must be neutral". That is far too far from what BLP requires for this person to be an admin. GRBerry20:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think what he means is that content written in a BLP must be written in a neutral point of view, and not that the information itself must be neutral... Spebi10:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - BLP does not state that information must be "neutral", only that information must be presented in a neutral manner. Leaving and returning are also not encouraging. Tim Vickers22:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I hate to do it, since my interactions with Eddie have been great and he is a great editor, but more experience is needed for me to support. Get the experience under your belt, and try again this fall. Jmlk1700:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No offense mate, but having been around for over 3 months is something that plenty of people have gotten through with. (No, this isn't WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS :P) Is there anything Eddie has done in his time here that indicates inexperience? GiggyUCP00:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger. While I have no specific reason to think this is the case with you (and I hope it's not), it's not a risk I'm willing to take. Kurt Weber (GoColts!) 00:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is wrong with self-noms? How can every self-nom be accused of power hunger? That's a very poor review of the candidate. J-stanTalk01:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kmweber, I do not like your's or Matthew's very WP:ABF votes in RfAs. Who can say this user is power hungry? How are self-noms evident of a user's contributions? Are you saying that you'll "take a risk" and oppose users based only on a self-nom? I tenaciously implore you to review this user's contributions and not blatantly oppose every self-nom just because you think they're bad. —«ANIMUM»02:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
J-stan points out "That's a very poor review of the candidate. In fact, Kurt admits that he doesn't review the candidates. He doesn't take the time to find out if his accusation is accurate. LeeboT/C14:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Boricuaeddie, calling someone a Troll and a Vandal for making what they believe to be a good faith oppose on your RFA is not a good way to demonstrate why I should trust you and is in fact likely to earn you additional opposition. --After Midnight000116:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've explained this several times before, but every time I have been either ridiculed or ignored. This is my last attempt:
It is my belief that the mere fact that one self-nominates himself for adminship makes him too great a risk to support. I have never claimed to have specific evidence that a specific user simply seeks power for power's sake. That's irrelevant; in my judgment, the possibility--the risk--is too great. I really don't understand why you insist on calling me a "troll" when I'm simply a bit more risk-averse than you are. Kurt Weber (GoColts!) 15:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I can not support someone who quit 3 weeks ago and who has either not experienced a true dispute or not been able to navigate successfully through one on his own accord, or is just unable express his ability to do so. --After Midnight000101:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure I've had many conflicts, but I don't like to think of them as conflicts, but as small discussions. If you're unsatisfied with my assumption of good faith during discussions, then fine. --Boricuaeddie01:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, now make that Strong oppose. You clearly don't get it. Quoting policy like AGF rather than recognizing something for what it obviously is is just silly. There is nothing so horrible about the connotation of the word conflict that one can not be called such. The fact that you seem to be unable to understand that things are what they are and that they must be dealt with by you sometimes, instead of AGF'ing and waiting for a white knight to ride in and save the day, show me that you are clearly not prepared for adminship. --After Midnight000103:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't help me or the encyclopedia. Instead of only telling me what I am doing wrong, please tell me how I can gain your trust. --Boricuaeddie03:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1) Withdraw this RFA 2) Edit 3) Get into conflicts 4) Resolve them 5) Help other people resolve their conflicts 6) Contribute to policy 7) Understand that Wikipedia is more than a bunch of policies, guidelines and essays. That will be a start.... --After Midnight000104:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Honestly I don't see where your major contributions to the encyclopedia have been. You want to be involed in WP:AIV yet have barely reported any vandals. The only area that I see you participate actively in is Usernames for admin attention, but it doesn't really take a firm grasp of policy to know that User:wjkud or User:J!mbo wales are inappropriate. T Rex | talk01:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not at this time Strong Oppose. In his short tenure here, Boricuaeddie has made more contributions to the encyclopedia than I have, but I still can’t support yet, mostly per After Midnight. After leaving and returning two weeks ago, I feel it is too soon to apply for adminship. I’d like to see a few more months of stability, so I can be more confident this won’t happen again. I do not believe this user has the emotional stability to be an admin. --barneca (talk) 14:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing overly problematic: Eddie is an asset to the project but small concerns do add up. His opposition in Brian New Zealand's RfA [11] shows a misunderstanding of what admins should be and a lack of judgment. I am also wary of very young admins because I do think that dealing with problematic users requires a maturity that very few 14 year olds have. Many will point out that we have some good teenage admins but I would humbly suggest that this is because we have a very high proportion of teenage editors. We also do have a few adult admins who behave like 14 year olds but I don't quite see why this is an argument for promoting more 14 year olds! Actually, the announced departure a couple of weeks ago is an ominous sign in that respect. All in all, I'm not convinced that Eddie would be able to communicate effectively and with the necessary finesse when he will face opposition of his admin actions and this concern is amplified by Eddie's self-confessed so-so English. Pascal.Tesson15:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Tim Vickers and Atrain's comment at 18:00, among others. Though I have seen your work around, and generally it looks okay, there just isn't enough evidence of the proper experience in admin work and dispute resolution. Not having much to go on, your muddled and terse responses here, in a forum where you are expected to show the utmost civility, gives me pause. And the time-span issues brought up don't exactly inspire me either. I say give yourself some time, and you'll probably make a fine candidate. VanTucky(talk)15:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of time served, unnecessary and rather rude responses to opposers' concerns. Does not have the necessary experience or temperament. ~ Riana ⁂15:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per barneca. Initially, I was skeptical of the maturity concerns here; I'm willing to overlook someone's leaving (because I'd rather have someone leave than snap and become unfriendly.) However, the candidate has seen fit to reply at this RfA to a large number of these opposes, sometimes with quite provocative, unnecessary comments. Conduct here does give me pause, and I now feel the candidate is not yet ready to handle the pressure of the mop. Xoloz15:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Neutral - per question four. Indef. blocks can be temporary. I have seen users who have been blocked indef. have their blocks lifted by an administrator who is willing to give that user another chance. A ban is placed by the community, Jimbo, or the arbitration committee. For bans placed by the arbitration committee, they have to be appealed via arbcom or Jimbo Wales. Miranda17:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral pending answer to question above, but currently leaning oppose. Considering that you haven't been here very long and that you retired just 3 weeks ago, I am not inclined to support. --After Midnight000119:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since he recently withheld support based on edit count, it's only fair to critically evaluate his own edit count here and now: Only 21 wikitalk edits is not enough to demonstrate any mentionable participation in debates there; and a ratio of less than a thousand mainspace edits versus 4.500 in total is rather uninspiring, too. —AldeBaer 21:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't have much talk page edits because I prefer to use a more personal approach to users. Because of this, I discuss changes to articles and other things on user talk pages, not article talk pages. --Boricuaeddie00:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Using article talk pages to discuss article content isn't impersonal, it's good practice. Article talk pages centralize discussion so that interested editors can find active debates on a particular subject in one place. ATraintalk00:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
His catty retorts to oppose and neutral responses don't fill me with much confidence. Then I looked at his user page and saw he was in eighth grade. I try not to be ageist, but the comments do make sense given his age. I know I could be like that when I was younger. Thus, I won't oppose, because it's really...not his fault. People grow as they get older, and I know he will. However, I did want to register the complaint against catty remarks like "well, if you don't like good faith, then FINE" and "that's YOUR opinion." I don't blame him, though, because I really do think it's just because he's not matured yet. Mike H.I did "That's hot" first!03:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successfulrequest for adminship. Please do not modify it.
Brian New Zealand (talk·contribs) - I offer up for your abuse discussion Brian New Zealand, he has had one previous RfA. I believe he has responded well to correcting those issues, and more importantly has corrected them. For those who do not know him, he is a 'crat, and Arbitrator, Checkuser, Oversighter at Wikinews. He also has been extremely involved with m:OTRS and the tools would only help the community in that respect. (There is a very large backlog for those who are not familiar with OTRS.) So lastly, lets give him a mop already, its overdue. Somitho10:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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: I anticipate that as an administrator, I would use my tools to help answering OTRS tickets more, there have been the occasion in the past where I have had to lean on my friendly neighbourhood admin to assist me. As an admin I would be able to process more tickets than I am now. I would in addition, aid on WP:RM, WP:AIV and WP:CSD; I have gained knowledge of policy and would like to assist in clearing backlogs.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: This has not changed since my last RFA, back in December. I am proud of all my contributions. I really enjoy writing an odd article that's missing from wikipedia, particularly New Zealand related political subjects. I take delight in jobs such as copy editing, and portal maintenance. Since getting involved with OTRS, I have enjoyed viewing, editing, and fixing the articles on Wikipedia, that are the subject of tickets. I have also learnt a few things, via answering OTRS, from articles that I would not normally read!
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: Not a lot has changed since last time I answered this question, I am not aware of any other conflicts as since since my last RfA. Also, I was elected a Arbitrator, on Wikinews in January, I like to feel I was elected because the Wikinews community felt that I can handle conflicts, should I ever get in to them
You're an admin doing CSD backlog work and you see an article which has been tagged for speedy deletion per G11 (Blatant advertising) but on looking at it, although the article is in a parlous state, it may be able to be improved with reliable and independent sources. You're not sure where to find said sources, however. What action would you take?
You're dealing with a seemingly one-off IP vandal who's vandalised articles for a school and several small towns nearby by replacing them with lame epithets. What action would you take?
There has been some controversy here over the nature, force, and extent of WP:BLP. I would expect a member of OTRS to be familiar with this; would you care to explain the controversy, as you see it, and you views on the questions involved? SeptentrionalisPMAnderson18:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Brian, it is nice that you are proud of "all your contributions" as per your answer to question 2, but could you provide some examples that demonstrate your commitment to content writing?
Few recent deleted contributions. In July they were to 4 images (3 marking OTRS confirmation, images deleted after a move to commons, one disputing a replacable fair use claim) and 1 article marked for deletion repeatedly (and deleted enough times by enough admins to be salted). June - zero, May - one article talk page, March - one image. 50 most recent deleted edits go back to June 2006. GRBerry13:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Brian New Zealand before commenting.
Discussion
Support
Support He seems like a responsible user who handles conflicts well and has a long list of good edits, furthermore he has been an excellent admin over at wikinews. I see no reason why he shouldn't have the mop. Elmo11:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support User has a solid contribution history here and I'm not familiar with his record at Wikinews but since he's a crat I'll trust it's good. -Nard11:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I only comment here if I already know something about the user. In this case I do and I believe we can trust him to use the tools wisely. --Bduke11:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Trustworthy Wikinews editor, does not suck at Wikipedia as far as I know, and plus OTRS-men should have adminship. MessedRocker (talk) 11:45, 31
Support I'm scratching my head at the first two opposes and the neutral. Clearly his long history of contributions here and at WikiNews is sufficient experience and if there are aspects of policy he's less familiar with on Wikipedia, we can trust him not to jump into it like a madman. As for interaction with other users, again, this simply boggles the mind: OTRS and arbitrator on Wikinews is not exactly something you can do without having shown communications skills. Pascal.Tesson14:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With or without math symbols, that argument does not make any sense. In your oppose you say that Brian should "sharpen one's skill at communication and dispute resolution". Do you really believe that Wikinews is so profoundly different that he could be an efficient arbitrator without that skill? You are citing AIV and CSD as if they could only be grasped after 6 months of intense study. They are not. In particular, I have full confidence (and I can't for the life of me understand why some wouldn't) that Brian's not going to start blocking people without asking around and reading the relevant policies to make sure he knows what he's doing. I never used WP:CSD#I8 before I became an admin. That's not a problem: when I started working on that backlog I simply read it, looked at deletion logs to see how others were handling it and started off with the simplest cases. Pascal.Tesson17:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's an active b'crat on Wikiquote who's banned from wp-en as a sockpupetteer who rigged RFAs. If what happens on Wikipedia doesn't effect people on other projects, I don't see why the reverse is true. --W.marsh20:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the impression that Poetlister was a b'crat on Wikiquote, apparently he's just an admin. Nevertheless, my point stands. --W.marsh21:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to correct a potential misconception - adminship involves granting of the tools to delete, undelete, block and unblock (and see deleted material), this isn't a contest for ArbCom or Mediation Committee. Orderinchaos10:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support; if he can manage all that on Wikinews, he's probably not half as thick as many of the people we do routinely sysop. I don't really care that the majority of his experience is on Wikinews. Not mental, could use the tools regarding the OTRS stuff = make him a sysop. Neil╦17:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Pascal. Policies on the wikis are not all the same, but they are similar. I can see that Brian can be trusted to use admin tools wisely and with due discretion. ShalomHello18:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'm going to support. This is obviously an experienced editor who has been here for quite some time and upon looking at his total edits, not simply his last few dozen edits, I can conclude with confidence that this person wouldn't abuse the tools. Wikidudeman(talk)22:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I personally doubt the oppose votes know how important is the OTRS. We need more people who is willing to do OTRS work. Only the most trusted editors are accepted for that. Jarandawat's sup22:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I know his work better on Wikinews as well, but his work on Wikipedia inspires just as much confidence. Plus, his OTRS work can only benefit from the additional resources. user:j talk 23:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I think you were my first non-support vote on an rfa ever, so I'll make it up to you. Well, that and the fact that you're certainly capable of being a good admin helps too. Wizardman01:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, Brian is trustworthy and experienced. Being familiar with his activities, I have complete confidence that would be an asset as a Wikipedia administrator.--cj | talk01:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. IIRC I suggested to Brian a few months back that he would be good admin material. About time he was given a mop. Grutness...wha?02:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm still not very satisfied with experience with deletion or blocking (via AIV reports) here, but I'm willing to overlook those given other strengths, and also his OTRS work.--Chaser - T03:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Obviously qualified in more ways than one. The opposing sides do have good points, but I believe you have the abilities to learn quickly. Jmlk1723:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support After looking at Brian's extensive contributions on *this* project I am happy to support, quite apart from his admirable work elsewhere which would suggest he has the technical and personal experience to use the tools appropriately. Orderinchaos04:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support- excellent editor but contributions exlcusively to New Zealand related isn't very diversified. I'm sure your excellent editing would also be appreciated in other mainspace areas. Onnaghar (Speak.work?) 14:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Brian has been around the traps long enough and done enough here and elsewhere that its clear he can be trusted; there is no good reason to oppose that I can see. And I know that the extra buttons will help his OTRS work which is important. —Moondyne16:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Long time editor in good standing. I feel he's OK with the tools. At look at his logs on Wikinews is a good indicator that knows how to use them and can be trusted with them.--Sandahl00:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Having read the opposes as of this moment, I can discount them all. I see a hard working editor and member of the community who will do just fine with the tools. JodyByak, yak, yak01:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OTRS>>Admin, the level of responsibility required for OTRS alone is much much much greater than that required for a mere wikipedia admin. Adminship is a job that can be done by an (admittedly smart and somewhat responsible) 15-year-old. What else can I say? Go Kiwi! :-) --Kim Bruning03:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support per all the points Pascal Tesson has made. OTRS-work is playing in the big leagues of policy and dispute resolution since it impinges on the real world, as is working at the level of Arbitrator and Bureaucrat on other projects. I have no doubt this user can handle admin tasks here and I think we should snap him up as an admin for this project before we run him off. Thanks for agreeing to serve. --A. B.(talk)23:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support If I base my statement on his activity and behavior on Wikinews, this user is an exceptional candidate. I have seen his activity on OTRS, and let me say, that is far harder and to qualify for a position such as that requires more responsibility and trust, by far, than is needed for adminship on any wiki, let alone the English Wikipedia, with thousands of users to check up on you. Cbrown1023talk23:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Trustworthy, and I think what was brought up in question #8 was a clicking of the "mark all edits as minor" button in preferences, and forgetting to change that or that he'd done it. hmwith talk20:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Definitely deserving of the extra buttons here. Outstanding editor, admin, and now bureaucrat, on the English Wikinews. Zachary23:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — Not convinced you need sysoping. Your latest mainspace edits don't inspire confidence within me. There's more to Wikipedia than OTRS or playing wikipolitics. Matthew13:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean that OTRS is just wikipolitics? Brian's first edit dates back to 2005 and you might want to look at his first 500 edits instead. To say that he does not know what it means to contribute to Wikipedia is simply unfair. Pascal.Tesson17:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose- You say you want to participate at AIV, yet I don't see many reports, so I do not know if you know when to block. I have the same concern with CSD. You say you want to participate there, but I don't see much new page patrolling or anything to indicate that you have knowledge of the speedy deletion criteria. Your work with OTRS is appreciated, but I don't think it's helped you prepare yourself for adminship. I also could not find much interaction with other users, which I believe is necessary to sharpen one's skill at communication and dispute resolution; both of which are an important part of being an admin. Sorry. --Boricuaeddie13:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is much, much more than "appreciated". It is hard work dealing that sometimes makes you need to deal with exceptionatly distraught people in a multitude of different dispautes. It is also something done after adminship (which Brian has already attained at Wikinews, amongst many other flags). Cbrown1023talk23:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose You haven't been very active in AIV with only 3 edits there. Is there anything besides OTRS that you do here. T Rex | talk14:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Matthew. While sysop powers are "no big deal", they are also not to given out lightly. Per his recent contrib history, I don't see this editor as carrying out tasks that vitally require sysop powers. I also see no substantial evidence of an ability to comport oneself with fairness and neutrality (in discussion). VanTucky(talk)17:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All apologies for hunting down the oppose voters but the "doesn't need the tools" argument has been debunked time and again. No editor vitally requires sysop powers. On the other hand, Wikipedia vitally needs sysops and sysops vitally need mature, responsible and committed editors to be granted sysop rights so that they can stop bugging us when they need to. Pascal.Tesson17:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it exists, please point me to the policy or guideline which says that not having an urgent and obvious reason to need the power to block, ban and protect is not a valid argument to oppose. Otherwise, I'll take the strength of your assertion as just that, an unverified assertion of consensus. I'm not going to give anyone an axe to hold over my head unless they can give me a damn good reason to, so when a user requests sysop powers when their contribution history shows no substantial administrative work, I'm going to oppose. It's not just a "doesn't need the tools" argument either. Someone with little to no administrative work experience or even a demonstration of their ability to weather heated discussion is certainly not a good candidate imo. VanTucky(talk)23:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, you won't find it much in guidelines and certainly not in policies. You can however take a look at this RfA where the issue was discussed in great lengths, this thread on the RfA talk page and this section in the (unfortunately so so) essay on arguments to avoid in RfAs. In any case, I'm not saying your oppose is against policy but rather against common sense. Having an "urgent and obvious" has never been a prerequisite to get sysop access and requiring that would be misunderstanding what the role of admins is. Moreover, at the risk of repeating myself, Brian's ability to "weather heated discussion" is amply demonstrated by his work on other Wiki-like projects. 03:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Oppose, sorry, even though we need more kiwi admins. I see little improvement since your last RfA, in a period which is also marked by a rather low activity and lack of participation in admin-oriented tasks (particularly WP:AIV and WP:RM, where you plan to be helping should you be given access to the admin tools).--Húsönd01:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Has not been especially active since his last failed RfA. I see no evidence of this editor making significant strides since then. Singopo11:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Talk space edits are extremely low. For me, talk space edits show an ability to work collaboratively and a lack of such edits puts that into question. Additionally, contributions seem very focused to one area of the encyclopedia. I'd like to see you broaden your horizons and get involved in other areas. Gain some additional experience through that, and I think you'll make a great admin. Lara♥Love04:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In essence, I'm opposing per Eddie. You say you wish to help out at speedy deletion, yet according to GRBerry your last 50 deleted edits go back to June of last year (I'm not an admin, so I can't verify this). That is a very, very small amount of CSD tagging, yet you wish to go around deleting such articles. Sorry, I just can't trust you to do that. Also a very low AIV count (4 or less, since wannabe_kate doesn't show it), yet you wish to help out there. Experience spawns trust, and I just don't see experience. Sorry mate, but WikiNews is a whole different kettle of fish; around here you just don't have my trust yet. By the way, go All Blacks :PGiggyTalk | Review07:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not too sure about this user, no offence meant at all. He seems fairly good, but almost all of his last 500 edits are marked as minor, and his edit count summary usage is fairly low, and while mine isnt very good until lately, I think this is something i'd like to see more of in an admin candidate. Another minor problem is that he has quite low space talk edits. All of these things are minor, but they come together, at least for me, to be a neutral, for the time being. Good luck all the same -- Anonymous DissidentTalk11:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit Conflict) Neutral. You have enough on your plate with all of your other duties in the other projects. I'm not entirely sure how much dedication you would give to adminship. J-stanTalk14:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would support (strong support, even) because you seem to be an excellent editor, adminship is no big deal, and the primary concern raised by the opposers ("doesn't need adminship") is a very bad reason to oppose; adminship is not something that you get because you "need" it, but rather because the community trusts in you and believes that you will not abuse them. However, I cannot support until we get a satisfying answer to question #8, because marking all your edits as minor implies unfamiliarity with Wikipedia practices. Melsaran (formerly Salaskаn) 12:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
talk pageFINAL (56/24/2); Ended, 00:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Wikidudeman (talk·contribs) - I am nominating Wikidudeman to be an administrator. I have interacted with Wikidudeman for about six months on several pages and have been impressed with his dedication and willingness to work with others. His recent work on Parapsychology, Ebonics and Homoeopathy shows that he has sufficient maturity and diplomacy to deal with even very difficult and controversial issues. A good editor with a solid track record. Tim Vickers18:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Co-nomination from: User:VanTucky - My first experience with Wikidudeman was when I began editing the extremely controversial Parapsychology article, what was recently at the center of an ArbCom case. During the case,and in the midst of continued edit warring, Wikidudeman took it upon himself to create a neutral space for all the users involved to try and collaboratively write a new draft of the article that would be acceptable to all parties and adhere to policy. He successfully arbitrated this endeavor and Parapsychology is now a Good Article. Simply put, without his neutral administration of an enormous rewrite, the article would be a nasty mess to this day. His actions also pretty much single-handedly convinced me of the merit of adhering to harmonious editing practices such as proposing controversial changes beforehand. He has continued this tradition of collaborative draft writing with the also-controversial Homeopathy article. While this type of work is not vandalfight or other traditional admin work, it has irrevocably demonstrated that Wikidudeman has all the qualities of a superb admin. Maturity, neutrality in decision-making, adherence to both the letter and the spirit of Wikipedia policy, and a zeal for improving articles and maintaining the stability and quality of Wikipedia as a whole. VanTucky(talk)19:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Candidate’s optional statement - Hello. I am Wikidudeman. I joined Wikipedia in the end of July 2006 and since then have contributed time to numerous articles, backlogs and projects. I have done my best to suppress and fight vandalism, improve articles and unofficially mediate disputes. However, it has recently become clear that my ability to help Wikipedia would be greatly improved if I had the extra editing capabilities that come from having the Mop.
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:My work as an admin would involve helping with numerous backlogs including CAT:CSD, CAT:DFUI, as well as helping over at WP:AN3 and WP:AFD. I would also work at WP:UAA and WP:RFU as well, though they are rarely backlogged. I would of course continue my anti-vandalism efforts, quickly blocking obvious vandals(after warnings) or aiding in blocking vandals reported by other users at WP:AIV. Also, aside from working on the backlog of candidates for speedy deletion, I would monitor recent creations and delete pages that would qualify for speedy deletion per WP:SD after going through the necessary processes.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A:I doubt I could name my top contribution. I have over 6,000 edits and have created several articles and uploaded about a dozen images so far. The Anabolic steroid article would be one of the articles that I consider to have benefited drastically from my work. I have over 450 edits to that article and since last year I have (along with the help of other editors) brought it from a start class article to a Good article and hopefully soon to be featured article. The Parapsychology article is also a notable one. I (along with the many other editors) have brought it from a disputed article with frequent edit wars, to a stable Good Article. I called upon all major editors to that article and helped them work out an article that they would not edit war over and that they could live with. The Bodybuilding article is another one which I have dedicated a lot of time to. I also frequently make numerous edits to various articles correcting their formats and citations. I am currently working on Wikipedia:Autoconfirmed Proposal, which would make it more difficult for repeat sock puppets to vandalize semi-protected pages.I am also currently working on a total re-write of the Homeopathy article with cooperation of all of its major contributors. When I came to the article, it was in bad shape with POV tags everywhere and relevant information missing, however since then I have gotten all of the previously conflicting editors to engage in a constructive discussion of the article at a draft in my user space. BTW, If anyone wants to help they can come to User talk:Wikidudeman/Homeopathdraft and join the discussions.
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 have not been in any actual "conflicts" that resulted in edit wars or violations of policy on my part. I have been in disagreements and debates with other editors about numerous topics, most of which were quickly resolved, however, I can't think of any long term "conflicts". Concerning disagreements and debates that became heated, I have been in a few. One that comes to mind was with Adam Cuerden after he deleted the Anabolic steroid article because he believed the first paragraph was a copyright violation and concluded that it all must be copyrighted. We had a heated discussion on the matter and almost immediately the article was restored by Tim Vickers, later this was confirmed in a Deletion review. At the time I was unaware that articles could be restored once deleted and from this ordeal I learned that deletions can always be undeleted. Considering I was under the impression I would have to write the entire article over again (which took several months) I believe I handled the situation very well, as the most heated thing I said was that "Adam, You don't know what you're talking about." Since this I try to remember that anything that is done can be undone and anything that is undone can be re-done very easily on Wikipedia. I try to remember this when someone does something that I believe is wrong or harmful so as to avoid being stressed by the situation.
A: If I understand the question correctly and you're asking for examples of work at XfD etc then I have about 44 contributions to WP:AIV probably several more times as many to XfD. I generally remove them from my watchlist once they have closed however an example would be the Chris Benoit murder-suicide which I nominated for deletion and can be found here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benoit family tragedy. The result was no consensus, possibly due to a high amount of new users from message boards who were told to vote to keep the article. I personally didn't have any opinion of whether or not it should be deleted or merged, I nominated it because there was a consensus against creating such an article on the talk page of Chris Benoit. That would be one example, however I probably have contributed to around 100 various debates for WP:AFD, however once they have closed I generally remove them from my watchlist.
General comments
Please note that I have already voted support, and have not engaged in any of the discussions on this page. It appears that some persons are confusing the opinions expressed by an editor on a (range of) subject(s) with the ability to apply policy as an administrator. It is not necessary for an administrator to have no opinion, or only an unbiased opinion, when reviewing a matter, it only matters that any opinion or bias is put aside in considering and acting upon a matter. I believe that only when it can be demonstrated that bias has or might of had influenced an editors duty of NPOV should it be argued as a reason for oppose in an RfA. LessHeard vanU12:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Closing comments
I want to thank everyone who participate in this RFA however regretfully I'm going to have to withdrawal it. I appreciate all of the input from everyone. Wikidudeman(talk)00:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Wikidudeman before commenting.
Support - a look at this User's contributions show that his interests are wide and his capabilities numerous. His behavior is often exemplary. Strongly support for adminship. - LuckyLouie19:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Would make a great admin based on contribs, nothing really to dislike except the whole barnstar thing which kind of worries me. But hell yes, support. Cheers,JetLover(talk)20:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support – the arguments below, whilst perhaps a little unnerving, are (in my eyes) not enough to counter the obvious nack for Mop-related activities Wikidudeman has developed during his time here on Wikipedia. Best of luck! Cheers, Anthøny20:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - with one reservation (not worthy for neutral); I feel admins need explain every edit, so I would hope Wikidudeman will enable the edit summary reminder feature. Otherwise, everything is great and have had good impressions of this editor. Safe with the tools. LessHeard vanU20:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another editor with special knowledge in a given area and more prone to bouts of WikiLove than abuse, certainly no complaints from here. Quick review of last 1000 contribs suggests a mature and well-considered editor who would do well with the mop in some of Wikipedia's darkest corners. Orderinchaos06:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support After reviewing your contributions, edit counts & talk page I feel confident enough that you are aware of the policies and guidelines that you will not abuse the buttons. --Ozgod02:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have read through this entire thing and it's a pretty serious information overload. All I can really say is that every encounter I've had with this editor's work has been positive. I can't come up with a compelling reason to oppose. Trusilver04:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Having read the user's last 2,000 contributions and the oppose votes carefully, I don't see anything here which worries me. A user's controversial opinions on select subjects or particular sociopolitical views, so long as they can make neutral decisions and respect consensus, should have no bearing on their capacity to use the suite of administrative tools. Zivko8507:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support (changed from neutral). I urge the candidate to take heed of some of the points brought up here, but there isn't any solid evidence that he'll be a poor admin, so I support. WaltonOne11:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support After considering the evidence from both sides of the argument, especially the oppose, I believe that Wikidudeman will make a fine administrator despite some concerns. -- Casmith_789 (talk) 16:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, the opposition does not give me any real pause. The "potential canvassing" brought up due to the barnstar thing seems positively silly - Wikidudeman seems to have a history of being generous with barnstars. To cast aspersions of canvassing because of a longstanding friendly activity - and then to oppose essentially on the basis of being "nice" - really rubs me the wrong way. ɑʀкʏɑɴ17:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support For those of you who have not spent time on some of the very contentious articles that WDM has been working on, it may be hard to appreciate the skill of this editor. My primary interactions with him have been on the parapsychology article and its ArbCom proceedings, but I've also been involved with him on other articles, such as electronic voice phenomena. He has an extremely cool head. He weaved his way between the pro-paranormalists and those who think that things have natural causes, and expertly drew up a draft that is now relatively stable. The quality of the article notwithstanding, what is remarkable is how WDM managed to forge consensus where previously there had been none. He is, above all, reasonable, and for that I support his nomination. Antelantalk03:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I wish I'd ever seen evidence of his reasonableness. Of course, contentious articles are a commonplace on Wikipedia, and one should expect that an Administrator will have to deal with them. For those of us who have spent time on contentious articles with Wikidudeman, the prospect is not cheery. Pinkville03:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pinkville, Editors outside of the AAVE discussion seem to agree that I handled the situation very well, going through the dispute resolution processes as they are set out by policy. If you don't think Parapsychology is a contentious article then I think you need to try looking at it's history. It was one of the most disputed articles on wikipedia. Or perhaps Homeopathy which I'm currently working on. Wikidudeman(talk)05:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I spent forty five minutes reading through the cases presented below, and this user has impressed me as mature and level-headed. MrPrada07:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - but only on the pretense that the aforementioned glitches in his editing history continues to diminish in frequency. Seems to be a worthy contributor, and past mistakes should remain in the past. An editor that will but the sysop responsibilities to good use. - Bennyboyz300008:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems your support is conditional upon demonstrated improvement over time -- even in the short term; however, this is an immediate process. Once the voting ends in a couple of days, the results will be reviewed and a determination made about WDM's adminship. So, if at this point you are at all uncertain about whether to support WDM, you may wish to change your vote to "Neutral," or do as others who've expressed similar reservations about WDM (below) to "Oppose." deeceevoice14:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The nomination says His recent work on Parapsychology, Ebonics and Homoeopathy shows that he has sufficient maturity and diplomacy to deal with even very difficult and controversial issues (emphasis added). What's this about Ebonics? I see no recent edits by Wikidudeman in its history. But his absence from its edit history is not something I regret. Wikidudeman had a long and highly distinctive involvement in the closely related article African American Vernacular English, as will be seen in AAVE/Archive 3, in subsequent archives, and in the current talk page. I have seen some very worthwhile contributions by him to other, unrelated articles and their talk pages, but am disturbed by the combination of his utter wrongheadedness over AAVE (the myth that it's "rudimentary" [his term], and other nonsense exploded decades ago), his obvious lack of serious reading about it (even what was written in some of the clearer parts of an admittedly flawed article, parts that he didn't question), his utter unconcern about this lack of reading, and his confidence in the rightness of having the article reflect his ignorance. These archived talk pages are tiresome and longwinded (their creation wasted a hell of a lot of man-hours) and make occasionally unpleasant reading. Still, I urge people to skimread them. (Of course I, as one of his opponents within them, am not lily-white myself: you'll see me losing my cool, calling names, etc.) An administrator should have a strong commitment to having articles reflect the fruit of fairly recent mainstream academic study (which disagrees over details but agrees that AAVE is in no way inferior to standard English), not his own received ideas and not (or only fleetingly) piffle uttered on the subject by this or that celebrity. Wikidudeman may have changed since March or thereabouts, when (to my great relief) he seemed to have lost interest in that article; I certainly hope that he has done so. -- Hoary11:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Hoary has ably described Wikidudeman's participation in the lengthy conflict at AAVE. I am surprised that Wikidudeman states I can't think of any long term "conflicts" in answer to Question 3, above, since the record of the AAVE article shows otherwise: a months-long (at least), many bytes, multi-participant dispute that included a poorly conducted mediation attempt (that is, poorly conducted by the mediator), a misguided attempt by Wikidudeman to move AAVE to Ebonics, a parallel misguided attempt by Wikidudeman to delete the existing Ebonics article, and much very heated language on all sides. Maybe our definitions of "long-term" and "conflict" differ sharply... In the end, the dispute died only because Wikidudeman seemed to finally lose interest, not because of any resolution engineered or even suggested by him. Throughout, his comments were inflammatory (as were my own, I'm sure, though I'm not running for Admin), unfocussed, obstructionist and unhelpful. Wikidudeman's comments were also, at times, offensive, stereotyping, and ignorant. I can't see how Wikidudeman's conduct in that dispute bodes well for his potential career as an Administrator. And given the record of his involvement in the above-mentioned mediation and AfD, and his record of half-hearted commitment to edit summaries, I remain to be convinced that Wikidudeman knows and understands Wikipedia policy sufficiently to operate successfully as an Admin. Pinkville15:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly I hadn't paid sufficient attention to Wikidudeman's answers to the questions when I wrote the comment above. Perhaps he takes "long term" to mean "over three months" or similar; in the context of Wikipedia, this seems odd. I find it hard to believe that he could have forgotten this episode. It was voluminous, as can be seen in Talk:AAVE/Archive 3, Talk:AAVE/Archive 4, Talk:AAVE, AfD/Ebonics, and also in user talk pages. I don't want to suggest deliberate evasiveness, so I'll say that he either read this question in a very odd way indeed or has a remarkably selective memory: either way, very iffy for an administrator. -- Hoary09:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved from frankly a weak oppose (almost neutral) to a Strong Oppose. I noticed someone wrote here that they're opposed to WDM because he's too SPOV (scientific POV). Of course, I prefer the SPOV (where it matters, say science articles and the related ones), so I should love WDM. However, what I've noticed is that his understanding of NPOV causes concerns from people. I'm troubled by his application of NPOV--recently, he wanted to rewrite Herbalism where a consensus has formed between opposing POV's to the point where the article is starting to round into solid shape. It's neutral, it's beginning to get some good sourcing, and the writing is starting to get better. It doesn't need a total rewrite. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions22:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning my attempts to improve the AAVE and Ebonics articles, I had the impression at the time I stopped editing those articles that the disputes were resolved, not because I lost interest. All I was doing was trying to make the article less POV by adding the fact that AAVE has encountered a significant amount of controversy. When I came upon the article, the language of it seemed to be apologetic in support of AAVE and dismissive of any sort of criticism of it. I went through the normal dispute resolutions, refrained from personal attacks, and kept a cool head as outside observers (including Tim Vickers) can testify. I felt the article was not POV so I attempted to improve it and went through the accepted avenues to do so. I also throught the Ebonics article should be merged with the AAVE article and also went through the accepted avenues to do that as well. I don't quite understand the oppositions of Hoary, Pinkville or Joshuaz. Wikidudeman(talk)18:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning edit summaries, I generally do a lot of my work to improve articles on sub-pages of my userpage often where I am the only person viewing the edits and changes. Up to a month or two ago I rarely added edit summaries to such pages however I've been starting to do so now. Up to a few months ago I also didn't often add edits summaries to minor edits, however I've started to do that always now as well. So I do appreciate that constructive criticism concerning my previous lack of use of edit summaries. Right now I have my options set to automatically remind me whenever I fail to add an edit summary so that I won't forget. Wikidudeman(talk)18:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Come on Orangemarlin, there are bound to be differences, but what is important is that he wants to resolve the dispute amicably. The intention is paramount. The rest is up to you. Thanking You, AltruismT a l k -Contribs.07:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. So even now, Wikidudeman says that the language of it seemed to be apologetic in support of AAVE. This unfortunately suggests that he has learned nothing from the whole experience. ¶ His comment of 15 January: It is a fact that AAVE is rudimentary compared to basic English. The complexity of AAVE words are limited and you rarely see polysyllabic words used in AAVE. It is also true that the vast majority of AAVE speakers are uneducated and come from urban areas. Criticizing AAVE for it’s lack of complexity and ability to effectively deliver complex ideas has absolutely nothing to do with “race”. ¶ User:Makerowner coolly and politely pointed out that (among other things) No modern linguist or even scientifically-oriented person should say that one speech form is 'rudimetary' while another is not. ¶ Wikidudeman responded (25 January) that I don't know any 'modern linguists' so I can't tell you what they would say but I myself am a scientifically-oriented person and I consider AAVE to be rudimentary English. Which I fear is very close to "Scholarship be damned; truthiness is all." ¶ Wikidudeman then said (25 January) that Also this article is in violation of WP:NPOV because it provides no alternative viewpoints concerning AAVE. It does not provide any criticism of it's use or correlation between those who use it and their general educational background. How can you claim this article is NPOV when it doesn't even have opposing viewpoints on it's use and impact? ¶ I countered that What alternative viewpoint concerning AAVE is worth presenting? As for criticism of its use, I see no criticism of the use of Cockney, Chicano English, Buffalo English, etc., and fail to see why the use of this or any lect should be criticized. Makerowner then wrote a longish paragraph in an amicable and polite attempt to educate Wikidudeman, who dismissed this as an unreadably long "rant". (It was at around this point that I lost patience with Wikidudeman, remarkably fast to ascribe illiteracy, poor education and incoherence to others for a person averaging over one punctuation goof per sentence, so reluctant to educate himself or even to read what was written expressly for him.) ¶ On 26 January Wikidudeman wrote that This article gives undue weight to the contention that Ebonics should be accepted in everyday speech and is somehow equal in sophistication to proper English. This article contains no references or criticism of Ebonics in any shape or form. This article needs to contain information concerning criticism of use of Ebonics including facts that speakers of Ebonics are generally less educated than speakers of proper english. ¶ A couple of days later (28 January 2007) Wikidudeman brought himself to say that he wasn't interested in the linguistic aspects of AAVE but instead in the sociological aspects. (He didn't retract his description of AAVE as "rudimentary".) And it was sociologically, he said, that a balanced view of AAVE required the presentation of criticism. But Wikidudeman never had any sociology to present. Instead, he merely banged on about the newsworthiness and significance of some would-be comedy routine by Bill Cosby. This strikes me as utterly unfunny; and if taken seriously, it's junk. Additionally, it was only minor news, and is trivial. ¶ Of course he could present no sociological criticism of AAVE: sociology studies, it doesn't (normally) criticize. (Additionally, there as never any sign of readiness by Wikidudeman to read anything longer than a web page.) I'm no sociolinguist, but I presume that there are sociolinguistic observations that (unremarkably for a lower-class urban lect) AAVE is stigmatized. And there surely are also studies estimating the negative effect of AAVE (or AAVE-influenced) speech on job placement and the like -- or anyway for those speakers unable (or, imaginably, unwilling) to codeswitch into Standard English. But Wikidudeman seemed to confuse an observation that something was (ignorantly) stigmatized with the need for respectful, even starstruck presentation of celebrity wrongheadedness. ¶ And now, months later, it seems that he still thinks the article was flawed not only in ways such as inadequate citation (which he was right to point out), poor organization, and general scrappiness, but also because it didn't adequately reflect popular wrong ideas about AAVE. I understand that he has done good work on pseudoscience, as subject he may have read up on. I dread to think what might happen the next time he comes across an article that doesn't reflect what he and some TV personality happen to believe. -- Hoary09:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I never like it when an applicant feels it necessary to respond to every oppose, as if it makes it better. Now we have several posts to my one line oppose. It makes it very difficult to read the opposes. Shouldn't these rants/commentary/discussions/arguments/responses etc. be moved to the discussion? I'm opposed, I have my reasons, I'm not discussing it further, nor am I going to read further comments opposed to my oppose. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions14:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Hoary and Pinkville; the candidate's answers to the questions do not seem to match up well with other users' experience of the editor. Jkelly18:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I was also part of the team that came up against Wikidudeman on the AAVE page, but it's not the disagreement with him or even his stubbornness and ignorance displayed in the discussions, it's his judgement. In the conflict, his attempts at dispute resolution showed a poor understanding of Wikipedia policies: he did an RfM first, nominated a page for deletion when he wanted it merged, added a disputed item to an article's to-do list, and evenwikilawyered. Now, granted, he wasn't ignorant in all policies (this was a discussion, not an edit war); people can learn from their mistakes and the AAVE dispute was potentially an intense lesson for Wikidudeman in the procedures for conflict resolution, but his discussion style was unbecoming of an editor. Wikidudeman would call long replies to his comments "rants" (saying he didn't have enough time to read them) and had complete disregard for verifiable sources (and sourcing in general). His failure to bring up this conflict here means he is either not honest with himself about it or is completely oblivious to the conflictive nature. From what else I see of Wikidudeman, it seems as though AAVE was an exception to otherwise good editor but while I see Wikidudeman doing a great job on all things sysop, any conflict resolution tools he is granted may, I think, not be used wisely. Ƶ§œš¹[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]19:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your input. Firstly, I want to mention that my nominating the Ebonics article to be deleted was a reaction to the fact that at the time of the nomination, the information between the two articles was redundant. Secondly, Concerning the difference posted where you say I was "Wikilawyering", Wikilawyering is one thing that I am definitely opposed to. The argument was concerning the name of an article and I was arguing that the article should be named not by what a technical or obscure academic term for the word was, but what most people referred to it as. I.E. "Ebonics" not "African American Vernacular English". Thirdly, You say that you are opposing me because of one instance where my conflict resolution was subpar, and acknowledge that this seems to be an exception in my editing, Perhaps you should take note of my recent dispute resolutions in relation to the Parapsychology article and currently the Homeopathy article. I believe that you are welcomed to your opposition however I believe it's only fair that you take into account my more recent contributions. Thanks. Wikidudeman(talk)19:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the situation of Ebonics and AAVE being redundant, the proper procedure is a merger, not a deletion. As for your more recent dispute resolutions, it seems like you do behave a lot better elsewhere. It's almost like two different editors. I know you may have been afraid to mention the AAVE disputation in question 3, but perhaps you could go into it from your perspective. Ƶ§œš¹[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]20:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply Pinkville. I didn't see the point in having numerous articles with minimal content on basically the same subject (historical concepts of race) exist separately. I still believe they should be merged, however I changed the proposition so that we could deal with one merger at a time, I also made that clear on the talk page of the article you linked. Wikidudeman(talk)05:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Articles that are set for merger often go through the deletion process since you can support merger or redirect, etc during deletion reviews. Also, The reason I didn't mention the AAVE dispute is because I didn't think it was that big of a deal, I thought it had been successfully resolved. Wikidudeman(talk)20:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The issue may be resolved now, but it was a big deal at the time. Give us your perspective of the dispute; how can one remedy your comments and behavior there with your behavior elsewhere? Ƶ§œš¹[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]20:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how it was a big deal. No policies were broken, The dispute ended with both parties content with a solution, I.E. Bill Cosby's criticism of AAVE being mentioned. It's true that at the time of the dispute (5 months ago) I was still learning about dispute resolutions and was a bit rough around the edges. I could possibly have handled the dispute better somehow, though the same could be said for other editors in the dispute. I'm fairly happy with the way it was resolved and the way it was handled though since I've had constructive experiences with the same editors (well most of them) who were part of the dispute since it ended. Wikidudeman(talk)20:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your taking time to address points that I've brought up. Right now, I think that you still have a bit to learn before being granted administrator duties but I do believe that you are more often a helpful and skilled Wikipedia editor and I certainly look forward to working with you in the future. Ƶ§œš¹[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]21:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Strong Oppose. In the recent paranormal arbitration case, Wikidudeman was heavily biased toward the (pseudo)skeptical side of the debate in a way that I feel is inappropriate for someone who wishes to be an admin - a cursory understanding of neutrality being a prerequisite in my opinion. For example, re the point that skeptical editors had engaged in edit warring, Wikidudeman said, "I have never seen this occur or seen evidence of it occur". A comment which, given the constant edit warring of the named "skeptical" parties in that case, displays either monumental ignorance (hence not fit to be an admin) or monumental dishonesty (again not fit to be an admin). That is, one need only take a cursory glance at the edit history of the EVP article (one major basis for the case) to see that the named "skeptical" parties (LuckieLouie, Minderbinder, ScienceApologist) had engaged in repeated edit warring (including the use of sock-puppets), and gang edit warring to try to force their POV into the article. Given that Wikidudeman could not form anything like a correct/neutral opinion in such an easy case, there seems to me no way he could be trusted to form one more difficult cases. He would, I fear, simply be another pseudoskeptical administrator who would be wheeled in when a debate was going against the pseudoskeptics in order to threaten and intimidate users. It is therefore hard for me to resist the conclusion that this is merely an attempt by the pseudoskeptical community in Wiki to get another of their "own men" on the inside so that they can force their POV into articles despite many (most) of their views about content being soundly rejected by the arbitration committee. That Wikidudeman agreed wholeheartedly with so many points that were rejected by that committee is, I think, a further reason why he is unsuitable to be an admin. Davkal19:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Davkal, I appreciate your input. I don't know what you mean by "pseudoskeptical" or anything like that, I want to point out that during the few weeks all of the major contributors (Including supporters and opponents of the idea of parapsychology) involving themselves in the dispute resolution, you never once added any input as far as I can remember, so I don't understand how you can attack me when all of the participants in my attempt to rewrite the parapsychology article are content with it's outcome. That includes many proponents and opponents of parapsychology. While a lot of edit warring did occur prior to my successful resolution of the disputes, I never once engaged in edit warring. I'm not sure I can gain anything from your criticism since you seem to be pegging me as a "Pseudoskeptic" from the get go, I do appreciate your input. Wikidudeman(talk)19:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly Davkal, this sounds like an "I don't like you" oppose. Not to be rude, but it is yourself, and not Wikidudeman, who was reprimanded by ArbCom for tendentious editing on paranormal subjects. Not once in the lengthy re-write of Parapyschology did he get accused of pushing a POV. In fact, several users who are admittedly members of the parapsychological community commended his actions. VanTucky(talk)20:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I rarely say this, but this opposition should be discounted. Wikidudeman's participation in the RfArb was within reasonable bounds. There may be a bit of projection going on here; Davkal, not Wikidudeman, was the subject of an ArbCom finding indicating that he's disruptive, prone to abusive sockpuppetry, 3RR violations, etc. This opposition amounts to a personal grudge and says nothing about Wikidudeman's qualifications as a potential admin. As the icing on the cake, Wikidudeman was a participant in improving the parapsychology article to GA status toward the end of the ArbCom case. MastCellTalk22:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Irrespective of how bad a man I am (a very bad man), or what my reasons were for saying what I said (I don't like him), or whether Wikidudeman really doesn't understand the words I used, or really can't find the arbcoms I clearly refer to (he does understand and he did know the arbcom I was referring to), the real question is whether what I said was true. And since it was true, it needs an answer. And since Wikidudeman has continued here above to pretend to fail, when it suits him, to find what is obvious to anyone, we have that answer. And the answer is: Wikidudeman is unfit to be an admin.Davkal23:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Davkal, Thanks for your reply. What exactly are you asking me to answer? You accuse me of being bias yet make no mention of the fact I brought all of the disputants in the Parapsychology article together to construct a Good Article that they all agreed on. I was a minor party in the Arbitration and played little to no role in the decisions of the arbitrators. None of the proposals I set were used by the arbitrators and my name wasn't mentioned by the arbitrators either. So I don't know exactly what you mean by that either. Wikidudeman(talk)00:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not asking you to answer anything. I am asking those who will decide whether you should be an admin to consider whether someone who cannot find any evidnce of edit-warring in amongst one of the most protracted and constant cases of edit-warring imaginable (EVP re the paranormal arbcom) is either able or honest enough to be an admin. I think the answer is no for the second reason. I think you knew very well that editors you support had been edit-warring yet you chose to pretend that you couldn't see it. If you want to explain how you came to miss such obvious bending/breaking of wiki policy in that case then feel free to do so. You certainly appeared to have eagle-eyes when it camme to spotting misdemeanors by myself and others whose views you oppose.Davkal23:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you're saying exactly. I never said that specific people who are part of the EVP article or the Parapsychology article never edit warred, I only said that I never edit warred. I've never once edit warred. You say that if I can't find cases of edit-warring on the EVP article I shouldn't be an admin? Maybe that's true, however if I were to look, it would be incredibly easy to find cases of edit warring on the EVP article. So I'm not understanding your criticism. Wikidudeman(talk)06:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wondered when you would start this particular line so I saved the diffs until now. You now claim never to have said that particular people had not edit warred re the EVP article. No, here is what you said: [[12]] in response to the charge that skeptical editors had edit warred against certain other editors here[[13]]. The point (the one I've been making all along), being that the editor mentioned (Simeos) had been edit-warring on the list of pseudosciences article, and many others named in the arbcom dispute had been edit-warring on the EVP article and yet you claimed you could find no evidence of it. Why don't you show some dignity, and respect for others, and pack up this request to be an admin right now.Davkal00:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Hoary and Pinkville. I would expect an adminstrator to behave in a more collegial and cooperative fashion than the conduct exhibited by the candidate in the discussions surrounding AAVE. This is only a question of experience -- admins will still become involved in editing disputes of all kinds, but I expect them to comport themselves with a level of calmness and good-humor that I don't see in the candidate's record. Xoloz21:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Xoloz. Perhaps you could look at my record in resolving disputes in the Paranormal article and currently the Homeopathy article. If you're going to judge all of my edits based on a single now resolved dispute from 5 months ago then It's only fair that you should comment on my more recent contributions. Wikidudeman(talk)22:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As others have, I also notice some brusqueness and WP:OWN issues in the Homeopathy dispute. I think you are getting somewhat better as you gain experience, but I cannot support at this time. Xoloz14:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply Xoloz. However I want to point out, as others have pointed out, Concerning the Homeopathy article, I proposed a "rewrite" of the article where all discussions would be made on the drafts talk page. I ask other editors not to edit the draft to prevent edit warring and attempt to organize the re-write into a proposal method, ONLY until it's the actual page is substituted with it, Once it's substituted then clearly anyone is free to make edits as they have done with the Parapsychology article. It's not an issue of WP:OWN simply because it's a rough draft on a subpage of my userpage. It's not a real article. It's only a rough draft used to create a neutral situation where other users can make proposals and then I make the relevant changes. This happens only on the draft and once it's made into an article, obviously anyone can edit it. Wikidudeman(talk)21:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict x2) Oppose The attitude in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal#Statement by frequently involved Wikidudeman is that Wikipedia should follow the scientific point of view. He appears to want to go even further than that rejected proposal and actually remove articles on pseudo-science. I don't want this user getting the delete button. He appears to lack understanding of the fact that the basis for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. While he wasn't sanctioned by the ArbComm, his basic assumptions were clearly rejected. I also found his conduct in this case to tend to continue the dispute rather than calm it down. I don't want him becoming an admin. GRBerry 22:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC) (Additionally, his deleted contributions reveal that he is marking speedy deletion taggings as minor edits very consistently. This is incorrect, they are anything but minor. GRBerry22:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I don't know about the present relevance of that. It seems to me that just after that, he worked pretty hard to improve and keep the Parapsychology article, which in addition to being a topic that is frequently considered pseudoscience, is now a GA. VanTucky(talk)22:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello ornis and thank you for your input. User talk:Wikidudeman/Homeopathdraft isn't a case of ownership issues. While I do ask users not to edit the draft themselves, This is simply to prevent edit warring. Once the draft is initiated then all editors are obviously free to make edits themselves. This method has a proven track record and is definitely not a case of ownership. Wikidudeman(talk)00:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While this technically makes no difference in application of WP:OWN, I would like to make it clear that the page in question is a draft created in Wikidudeman's own talk space. This isn't an article, but a sandbox-like creation that Wikidudeman has created in an effort to improve a poorly-written and controversial article wihtout any of the customary edit warring. I don't see many other users inviting others to contribute in their personal sandboxes... VanTucky(talk)02:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the AAVE discussions and some of the subsequent comments by opposers above. It's not any one post by Wikidudeman that makes me oppose, but after reading that archive, and the AfD discussion, I simply don't trust his judgment. Mike Christie(talk)14:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An additional note, as I've been following this debate with interest. WDM has support from some editors whose judgement I trust, such as TimVickers and LaraLove, so I opposed with some reluctance. I agree with some commenters that WDM has demonstrated his value to the project, and I think there's a good chance that he would be a good and effective admin. I'd be willing to consider supporting at a subsequent RfA, but for now, reviewing his contributions doesn't make me sufficiently comfortable with the way he handles controversy. Mike Christie(talk)14:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like Wikidudeman, and it is with substantial reluctance that I advise letting this valuable contributor ripen a bit more on the vine before putting these powerful tools in his hands. I also was a bit concerned when I read the statements of Pedro, Hoary and Pinkville. I follow the line of thought that anyone who wants to be in a position of power, probably is the wrong person to put in a position of power. While he is trying valiantly to bring some order to the situation at homeopathy, for which we are all grateful, I just wonder about the prudence of this action at this time.--Filll17:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This "anyone who wants to be in a position of power, probably is the wrong person..." seems like an assumption of bad faith to me. I don't think a desire to do administrative tasks is a demonstrator of bad character. VanTucky(talk)17:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Surely this recent diff is some sort of mistake? [14] I do not want to believe that it is indicative of some of the things that people are saying here. But wow. Just wow. --Filll00:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose. My exposure to the candidate is fairly restricted, but far from limited, stemming from a content dispute at AAVE. Throughout, the candidate sought to edit-war his utterly uninformed perceptions of the subject into the article, all the while displaying an abysmal ignorance about the topic and extreme cultural bias and insensitivity. He refused to listen to reason, to ample documentation presented by other readers, or to acknowledge the validity of scholarly opinions on the matter. I urge voters to refer to the discussion pages of the article for examples of this editor's comments. Here's a link to one archived discussion page.[15] This candidate definitely does not exhibit either the temperament or judgment to be an effective and impartial administrator. In light of my experience with this user, I find his answers to the questions posed highly disingenuous. A definite thumbs down. deeceevoice19:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input deeceevoice, I really appreciate it. However I want to point out a few very important things. Firstly, I spent a couple of weeks on the AAVE talk page trying to hack out a consensus with other editors. I only made 38 edits to the AAVE page but I made 182 to it's talk page. I never engaged in any edit waring. I went through all of the steps in dispute resolution in an attempt to hack out a consensus and did my best to do so. I do appreciate your input. Wikidudeman(talk)21:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Better put, then, your ad nauseam, stubborn antics on the article talk page, tiresomely pushing a thinly veiled POV campaign against AAVE in the face of overwhelming, reasoned arguments, scholarly and otherwise, to the contrary. "Rudimentary" and "monosyllabic"? That you leveled such criticisms at all is bad enough, that you stubbornly and repeatedly defended such appalling ignorance and cultural bias is another thing altogether. Doggedly advancing a nonsensical, insulting, clearly culturally biased, possibly racist, knee-jerk viewpoint with the aim of simply outlasting/wearing down others who contributed from a knowledge-based, value-neutral perspective is not seeking "consensus" as you claim. What is extremely telling is that the difference is something you don't -- or won't -- recognize. Speaking plainly, your comment here -- and elsewhere on this page -- comes off as little more than smarmy, self-serving posturing for the purpose of obtaining adminship. Your record is clear, and when it comes to adminship, you simply don't measure up. deeceevoice02:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I"m sorry, But I don't think I'm going to even address your comments. You seem to be intent on insults and name calling so I'll just leave it alone. Wikidudeman(talk)02:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, The problem is that I can't find anything constructive about calling my opinions "ignorant, nonsensical, insulting, biased, and possibly racist". That's very insulting as a matter of a fact. As is stating that I am "smarmy"(not sure what that word even means) and "Self serving". Wikidudeman(talk)03:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My comments aren't personal. I see it as calling a spade a spade. It's simple Standard English, WDM. "Ignorant" as in uninformed. "Nonsensical" as in your criticisms made no sense -- as in being flat-out wrong and completely unsupported by informed, scholarly opinion. "Insulting" as in offensive to an ethnic minority, calling AAVE "rudimentary" and "monosyllabic." "Biased" as in POV pushing. "Possibly racist," because such viewpoints easily could be construed -- because they are based on uninformed opinions blindly adhered to even in the face of clear, countervailing logic -- as antagonistic toward or demeaning to particular "race." "Smarmy" as in -- look it up if you don't know what it means -- displaying a "false earnestness." Your latest response to my comments seems to me clearly indicative of your inability to distinguish between honest criticism/appraisal and personal attack -- an important qualification for adminship if ever there was one. deeceevoice03:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Such terms ("ignorant, nonsensical, insulting, biased, and possibly racist", "self serving") are entirely reasonable - they can be disputed, but they are reasonable, not insulting. "Smarmy" comes closer than any other term mentioned to being an insult, but a pretty meak one at that. Pinkville03:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True or not, Deeceevoice, your comments are personal and you aren't showing any tact in your manner of voicing your opinions, which seems pretty uncivil in my opinion and I happen to agree with your sentiment. This is an RfA, not a place to vent one's frustrations at past dealings with a potential admin. To Wikidudeman, I would like to say that I think Deeceevoice's concern is a valid one: you have a lot of difficulty recognizing your own bias. We can't all be Gandhi, but if you can't see your bias in controversial disputes or even that you are biased then that has profound implications on your ability to mediate disputes in a neutral manner.
I don't know this guy WDM. So, no, this isn't personal. And not showing any tact? That's amusing. Read my comments again. I didn't call the guy a racist. That's tact. I didn't say he was smarmy. I said his comments "come off as smarmy" -- which is fact. You may disagree with what I have to say, and that's your right. But don't misconstrue and then proceed to mischaraterize my comments. I'm not here to play diplomat/statesman. IMO, editor comments regarding potential adminship require directness and frankness. I couldn't care less if they're not perceived as playing nicey-nice. This is serious business. It's about the quality and integrity of the project; it's not tea time at the White House. And even if it were -- consider me Eartha Kitt ;). deeceevoice04:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you and I simply have different definitions of personal in this context, so I'll drop that point but there's nothing difficult about "please keep criticism constructive and polite". Your comment was neither but I thought you had a good point and I reiterated it in more constructive terms so that Wikidudeman can grow and learn as a contributer. Ƶ§œš¹[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]04:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Constructive," to me in this context means constructive to the process. And, certainly, providing my honest assessment of, IMO, a person's unsuitability for an adminship and then supplying information that backs up that opinion is constructive. Again, I'm not here to play nice or to stroke someone's ego. This is about the integrity of the project. And given the choice of being polite and telling someone they're unqualified to be an admin and precisely why, I've chosen to do the latter. Your perspective isn't mine. Your way isn't mine. I'm direct; I don't mince words. So, you do you, and I'll do me. Peace. deeceevoice04:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to edit warring, I don't have the time or the patience to hunt up diffs, but another editor apparently has. I will not name them out of courtesy. They say they have not formed an opinion on the matter of WDM's RFA, but have researched the issue of edit warring and forwarded the information to me. He/she has provided the following, which seems pretty clear evidence of WDM's repeated and stubborn insertion of text while the dispute was still under discussion on the article talk page.
I wasn't involved in that issue at all (have never seen the page before), but those diffs are all ~ the same diff inserted at different times. It contains material appropriately sourced (to Bill Cosby) that is critical of Black Vernacular English. Whether or not that material is appropriate for the page is/was a content decision, although I agree that it doesn't seem like it belongs in the article. However, the material itself seems to have been inserted with reasonably good faith. And, although the framing that you're giving us is "he kept putting this back in", the flip side is that someone else kept taking it out. Without knowing the entire context, those diffs alone don't tell us very much. Antelantalk04:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not concerned about "the flip side." The possible adminship of that person (or persons) responsible for deleting the text isn't under discussion here. The conduct of WDM, which in this particular instance is edit warring, is. deeceevoice05:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have presented 5 diffs. Of those diffs, 2 are WDM adding back material that he himself removed. Of the 3 remaining diffs, one was a legitimate content question (someone took some of his criticism points, incorporated them into the article, and left some of the material out, which he then added back). Consequently, there are 2 diffs that could be, to my mind, considered undesirable conduct. Remarkably, you were a participants in one of the 2 remaining diffs [16] in what you term an "edit war". I'm putting this here for the sake of those who might otherwise just see the wall of diffs and be convinced by its sheer volume. Antelantalk05:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're probably right Antelan. People see a list of Diffs presented by an opposer and often without reading them decide to oppose based on that, without ever even investigating to see if the differences are what is being said they are. During the AAVE discussion I frequently removed content I added because of the disputes on the talk page. I wanted to wait until the disputes were over until I added it back. Wikidudeman(talk)06:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't check the diffs that carefully. I just skimmed what someone else gave me, and they looked legit. Now I open my Wiki e-mail address and find this:
"I felt so awful that I went back and quadruple checked these edits.... Now this happens over a two day period, but it's still edit warring...against two different editors....
As I said, I don't have the patience for this sort of thing, but apparently you do, Antelan. Please feel free to check these and respond. deeceevoice06:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Among those 6 diffs selected above, you can find the 2 diffs I already said could be considered "undesirable conduct", and the diff where you participated in the edit war. Nothing in that cluster newly shows WDM in a negative light. I suppose my role is now "official fact-checker of 3rd-party-supplied, 2nd-party-posted diffs" :-) ? Antelantalk12:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't consider 3 re-additions of something in two day period edit warring. The additions and removal of that material was due to fluctuations on the talk page. I would get the impression that the editors were ok with the addition and then once added it was removed and the process would repeat itself. After a few edits I stopped all editing and adding of the material. I stopped adding it all together and spent about 3 weeks discussing it on the talk page until a consensus (or what I thought was a consensus) was reached and then I moved onto other articles. Wikidudeman(talk)07:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That, Wikidudeman, is a gross mischaracterization that could not be anything but intentional. Here's my own series of diffs (in chronological order):
In this period, there was virtually no support for the controversy section he kept trying to include and some very strong opposition to it. There were no "fluctuations" in the talk page; in most cases (except when it would have violated WP:3RR) he would put the criticism section back in minutes after making a single reply to those who disagreed with him. Granted, he did eventually stop making edits to the article and concentrated on just discussion. After a month of such repetitive discussion, I moved to temporarily suspend the discussion on Cosby and that is when Wikidudeman stopped pushing the issue. Technically, he didn't get what he wanted (a full paragraph quote of Cosby) but it was apparently a way for him to leave while still saving face. Wikidudeman's mischaracterization of himself is not appreciated. Ƶ§œš¹[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]10:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For those interested, here are 500 historical edits from the AAVE article. Notice that once after having added the material a few times in a period of a few days I immediatly stopped adding it. [[17]]. I never once added the material in question again and from that point I spent 2-3 weeks on the talk page attempting to hack out a consensus. Wikidudeman(talk)07:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose- On a recent draft proposal for the Parapsychology article, Wikidudeman did a fairly good job of presenting and managing a discussion of his draft, but he frequently ignored the proposals of editors he disagreed with, but would immediately implement the suggestions of editors he agreed with- sometimes against consensus and over the objections of the other editors. For example, here are some complaints by other editors about being ignored by Wikidudeman: [18][19][20] WDM's response to why they were ignored: [21] "Overlooked" is unbelievable, they repeated their requests over and over...he ignored them in favor of adding the non-consensus requests made by those WDM agrees with.
During the time he was POV-pushing on the Parapsychology article (see this) he called what another editor said "Hogwash," Then denied that he had said anything insulting: [22]. The Arbitration Committee later found that parapsychology is in fact a scientific discipline, confirming what we were trying to tell WDM.
However, the essence of the debate -to me- was not whether Parapsychology is or is not a pseudoscience. Rather, it was what Wikipedia must accept, given its policies. I said so, but WDM seemed intent on proving his point, and having that point reflected in the article. This is especially disturbing for an potential admin.
Wikidudeman engaged in spamming arbitrators in an ArbCom case in an attempt to sway their opinion against an opposing editor: Fred Bauder: (4x) [23][24][25][26], Kirill Lokshin: [27], Uninvited Co: [28], Jdforrester: [29][30][31], Charles Matthews: (5x) [32][33][34][35][36][37]
Accusing or making comments about other user’s motivations: [38][39][40]
Characterizing another editors posts as ‘triflings’ and inappropriately ‘challenging’ the other editor to a ‘duel’ on an external website forum: [41]
I have encountered Wikidudeman on multiple occasions, and most of those encounters were highly negative. However, in the past few weeks, an astonishing change came over his editing habits. He started being civil, he started being much more NPOV, he started trying to form consensus, and he stopped POV-pushing (for instance, the way he did on the Parapsychology article). Still, he ignored my and other people's suggestions regarding the new draft of the Parapsychology article, while immediately introducing changes suggested by those he likes. [42]
I have nothing against WDM personally, and I was able to work with him to an extent in the last few weeks on the draft of the Parapsychology article. However, I think his abrupt change of behavior occurred in interestingly close temporal proximity to his RfA. I think he should prove that he is really an NPOV and civil editor for a while longer before he becomes and admin.
Were Wikidudeman to become an administrator today, I would expect him to use his power to push his POV on articles relating to the paranormal, and to try and destroy editors such as myself. He certainly has tried hard to get ArbCom to destroy me, even while ArbCom was intent on refuting those POVs he has pushed in paranormal articles. Martinphi(Talk Ψ Contribs)22:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input Martin. Most of your criticism seems to stem from my previous attempts to debate in support of or against specific issues, I.E. science or pseudo science. However, as you know, During the last few months I only attempt to improve the articles and let the facts speak for themselves in a neutral way. As far as if I become an admin I would "Destroy you", I'm not sure how to even respond to that. Wikidudeman(talk)22:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually really sorry to have had to say all this. I'm especially sorry because you have been more NPOV in the last few weeks. But you tried very, very hard to get the Arbitrators to take action against me- in other words, you tried to destroy me as an editor on Wikipedia, to the greatest extent that you could. You've also done a lot of other things against the spirit of Wikipedia, and seemingly without reference to the rules. I wish you hadn't requested FfA, because I had hoped to be able to work with you in peace, but I just can't keep silent here. Martinphi(Talk Ψ Contribs)22:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you might not. But you tried as hard as you could to get ArbCom to punish me -spamming the Arbitrator's talk pages-, and what people asked for in the RfC was that I be totally banned from editing paranormal, at least- which is all I care about enough to edit. So basically, you were trying to get ArbCom to destroy me- or to do some measure thereof. This is not exaggeration. Anyone who wants to read a book can go look at the RfC, the ArbCom, and its result. Martinphi(Talk Ψ Contribs)01:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to get the arbitrators to take into consideration your previous editing habits, which were one of the main points of the arbitration to begin with. I wasn't "Spamming" the arbcoms pages, I was leaving notices every once and a while to remind them of some proposals introduced by the users which they never put up for a vote. Do you disagree you were making disruptive edits? You created a sock puppet, You edit warred, You've been blocked for 3rr violations. Do you disagree? I thought the Arbcom should at least try to do something about this. I don't know what you're blaming me for. It appears you're holding a grudge for my attempts to get the Arbcom to do something about your editing habits. Wikidudeman(talk)01:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was blocked once. Repeted "reminders" of the patently obvious are spam. This lack of preciseness and knowledge, combined with a willingness to make assertions anyway, is disturbing in a candidate. I never said I was a saint, however if anyone had cared a lick about editing habits, they'd have gone after Davkal, not me. I do disagree that I was, generally speaking, being disruptive in a negative manner, because what I was disrupting was POV-pushing. NPOV does not require consensus. ArbCom confirmed my understanding of NPOV.Martinphi(Talk Ψ Contribs)
Interesting, for all my issues with Wikidudeman, this oppose seems to be almost completely based off the fact that Wikidudeman did help a fair bit with NPOVing issues (I don't think he was always correct with what was NPOV) and that he stopped some of Martin's repeated attempts to POV push. JoshuaZ01:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you think that? Just because the arbcom didn't think that your behavior raised to sanctionable levels doesn't mean that you were following NPOV. JoshuaZ02:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. WDM has done a lot of great work on the 'pedia and is obviously dedicated to its cause. However, the above comments give me pause. I can't find any uncivil comments dated beyond February, and I would like to believe that WDM has left the incivility behind. However I also cannot find any apologies or admissions of uncivil behavior. Therefore I must oppose. I will reconsider if he re-applies later. If anyone would like to reply to my comment, please do so on the talk page. Thank you, Fang Ailitalk23:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer the discussions occur here. It's true that I have vastly improved my mediation abilities since Febuary, however even then I don't believe I did anything uncivil. If I thought I did then I would have quickly issued an apology however I don't believe my behavior was anywhere near uncivil. Wikidudeman(talk)00:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you would have figured out by now that turning your RfA into a battleground doesn't help your chances. But if you prefer to discuss here-- can you honestly say that calling someone's good-faith comment a "rant" [43]and a "tirade" [44] is not uncivil? Or calling another editor's opinions "triflings"[45]? Or saying you cannot read a paragraph of discussion "due to my having a life outside wikipedia" (see first diff)? I understand that discussions can get heated and sometimes the wrong thing is said, but if you cannot at least admit to being uncivil, you really have no business being an administrator. --Fang Ailitalk14:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Oppose. It gives me no pleasure to oppose a good contributor, but RfA is mostly about trusting someone with the tools and there are too many ifs and buts here for me to really trust Wikidudeman. I recommend candidate withdraws, does some serious pondering on the issues raised here and returns as soon as possible for an RfA that'll storm through. Whatever you decide to do, good luck to you. I can see you're one of the good guys, I just have too many questions over your judgement. --Dweller10:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Plz. look at his recent edits (choose a reasonable number) and see if he is a person who's likely to abuse his admin powers. The answer will speak for itself. All of us change with time, especially very fast in Wikipedia, where we learn new duties and rights almost every other day. Thanking You, AltruismT a l k -Contribs.11:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If there are editors who contribute lightly to RfAs, I'm not one of them, particularly when I oppose. I've already looked through a chunk of this user's editing, as part of my decision-making before !voting oppose. NB "supporters" of RfA candidates should bear in mind that vigorous defence of the candidate to every opposer has a tendancy sometimes to backfire. --Dweller14:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is evidence of edit warring, and Wikidudeman's statement to the effect that there was no edit warring is evidence that the problem remains. I cannot trust the candidate to perform administrator duties in a neutral manner at this time, so I must oppose. Dekimasuよ!13:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I basically ignored all of the details on this page about whatever contention there is about specific articles and opinions and edit warring, because, quite frankly, I a) don't care for the drama and b) I don't want to give up the next 2 hours of my life. I will say that the drama itself on this page and the constant back and forth between your opposers and you and your supporters leaves a very bad taste in my mouth and doesn't exactly engender confidence. Putting that aside, I decided to look at your edits to Wikipedia talk space and quickly found one which pretty well allowed me to stop investigating. Your comments here have me concerned that you do not have the judgment necessary to made the decisions required of an admin. --After Midnight000114:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose– I’m afraid I must oppose this nomination per Fang Aili and After Midnight. While Wikidudeman has done some very good work, the above comments and the replies concern me. – Dreadstar†21:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See my reply below. You misinterpreted my wording. I never said or meant to imply that NPOV trumps undue weight. I said my goal was to present the Homeopathy atricle in both a NPOV manner as well as not giving undue weight to any viewpoint. This means following NPOV AND Undue weight.Wikidudeman(talk)23:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Neutral So I think I'm going to stuff my personal reputation here with this, as this editor is so good and contribs are fab. But[46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58] barnstars to RFA regulars (including one to myself) in the few days prior to this RFA reeks of a violation of WP:CANVASS. I'm really sorry, as it looks like I'm throwing WP:AGF out the window, but I can only comment based on my personal beliefs. For what it's worth if it where not for this I would have been a strong support. I'm ready to get shot down in flames for this, but I doubt my oppose will change. Pedro | Chat 19:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I give barnstars to most good editors I encounter during deletion debates, RFA's, Vandalism fighting, etc. I frequent RFA's and often vote and thus I view the contributions of users who vote and give them barnstars respectively. I respect your opinion but I'm sorry you view it as some sort of attempt to sway votes. A quick look at my talk page archives will confirm that I've been doing this for a while now. I don't quite understand exactly how a barnstar could sway a vote to begin with.Wikidudeman(talk)19:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to shout you down with flames Pedro, you have in the past certainly demonstrated your civility and assumption of good faith. Your concerns might have some merit if taken out of the context of Wikidudeman's contribution pattern as whole, but I myself can attest to the truth of his response. I don't think his proclivity for spreading some WikiLove is a fault. VanTucky(talk)19:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Man, this is so gutting to oppose such a good editor. It's just the timing and the ammount in a concentrated burst. Let's hope I'm out of line and the closing 'crat ignore this. But I have to comment based on my conscience and my personal beliefs. I'm sorry. Best wishes. Pedro | Chat 19:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I do respect your opinion, and appreciate constructive criticism, I'm not sure I can correct in my actions concerning this opposition. I give barnstars to most good editors I encounter anywhere. I will continue to do so. Wikidudeman(talk)19:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As an award recipient, I had no knowledge of this RfA until I saw yesterday's listing. These awards are not related to this RfA at all. It is perhaps a coincidence that he gave out these awards prior to this nomination. Sr1320:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved the entire conversation to Neutral from Oppose so as not to lose a great potential admin who may have made small error of timing / judgement that should not affect the rest of the discussion.Pedro | Chat 20:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And yet people are opposing per Pedro. The crat should really consider the fact that Pedro isn't opposing, but others are per these arguments. GiggyUCP00:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Except I doubt the closing bureaucrat will read all of this. Most likely it won't get to be above 75% and thus it will end in no consensus regardless. However I do agree. Wikidudeman(talk)07:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, leaning to support. Good candidate in general, but my discussion with him at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Booyabazooka, and subsequent follow-up on his talk page here, leaves me concerned about his judgment. Someone who relies excessively on WP:UCS, an essay which is not part of policy, and WP:IAR, a policy which (IMO) should be used sparingly and only in uncontroversial circumstances, may well be too cavalier in using the admin tools, and may not follow policy and procedure. I don't feel that this candidate is sufficiently committed to following the policies and guidelines laid down by community consensus. Nevertheless, I don't have any direct evidence to suggest he would be a bad admin, so I won't oppose. WaltonOne20:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My views on this were elaborated clearly in our talk page discussion found here User_talk:Wikidudeman#UCS_and_IAR. You ceased discussing it with me for some reason, however I thought that we were in an agreement. Wikipedia is a very dynamic project who's rules are frequently changing and begin reworded. I'm NOT supporting some wanton disregard for policy, However, WP:IAR is here to prevent "Wikilawyering" and strictly interpreting the rules to a point it harms the project. If you come upon a situation where a super strict interpretation of the rules could result in a negative effect for wikipedia then it's best to use common sense opposed to strictly following a specific rule which could be reworded tomorrow. That's my opinion on that. Wikidudeman(talk)20:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak to the particular talk page in question, but out of hundreds of talk comments I have seen from Wikidudeman, I have never seen him use those links until now. VanTucky(talk)20:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It takes a very subtle knowledge of the policies(or style guidelines) to identify when they are being used or not being used. For instance WP:NPOV discourages structuring and segregating articles into "Criticism" sections, However in my experience this is the best way to promote equality and peace in articles and discourage edit warring. An example is the Parapsychology article which splits areas and has a "Criticism" area. WP:NPOV would discourage this, however based on experience I find it the best (and only) way to avoid disputes and edit wars. Wikidudeman(talk)20:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I have concerns about edit history, not just that they've been missing until this month, but they are often somewhat less than accurate. The AAVE comments concern me as well, as does the draft re Homeopathy. Let's not have a long drawn out discussion about this: if Wikidudeman chooses to reply (preferably one reply, and then a chance for me to reply) that's fine. BTW, Wikidudeman's habit of posting in a monologue styles bothers me as well. •Jim62sch•21:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Jim, I'm sorry I didn't respond to you earlier. You mention my edit summaries being somewhat less than accurate, while this is true, this is mostly because many of the edits I do are done on my user sub-pages where no one else is seeing the edits and thus no one sees the summaries except for recent changes patrollers in which case they see I am editing my own page so that it's not something to worry about. You mention the AAVE discussion but as far as I can tell I handled that dispute very well. You also mention the Homeopathy rewrite draft, what exactly concerns you about that? It's a rewrite project in my sandbox where other edits can make proposed changes. It's worked very well in the past and will work very well this time as well. It's not a case of ownership since it's just a rough draft in my sandbox and once it's implemented into an actual article, obviously anyone can make edits. The sandbox draft is simply to prevent edit warring and create a neutral atmosphere to discuss changes without worrying about having to make any changes or revert changes. All changes are made per consensus of the discussions and when all parties are agreed on the page then we replace the live article with it and everything works out. Wikidudeman(talk)06:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The AAVE stuff is discussed above ad nauseum. The homeopathy draft I just don't see as an improvement and I think there are some NPOV and undue weight problems there -- it seems that you might have forgotten that homeopathy is a minority viewpoint and is pseudoscience. The edits I was talking about were in mainspace, not sandboxes. Unfortunately, I didn't save the diffs and don't have the time to look for them at the moment. Obviously, I'm not opposing you, but I do see some things that rouble me. •Jim62sch•10:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. The Homeopathy article hasn't been implemented yet. It's still under improvements. It's located here User:Wikidudeman/Homeopathdraft and I've invited all frequent editors of the Homeopathy page to come and make proposed changes. I recognize that homeopathy isn't medically valid, however my goal is to present the article in a NPOV way that removes any undue weight issues. I'm not sure the problem you see with it. Since it's not ownership issues, what is it? You're welcomed to help us improve it as well. There are several editors working very hard there to improve it. Wikidudeman(talk)10:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you mean. "Mistaken NPOV as trumping undue weight"? You clearly misunderstood my wording. I said "present the article in a NPOV way that removes any undue weight issues" meaning presenting it in a NPOV manner AS WELL AS removing undue weight issues." Wikidudeman(talk)23:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Good: Dedicated contributor, reasonable, more than willing to work with others, has respect for Wikipedia policies, and is an asset to Wikipedia. Bad: Sometimes misses important detail in conversations, (imho) compromises but has a strong point of view, and (imho) has a profound distrust of some other editors. --Nealparr(talk to me)00:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successfulrequest for adminship. Please do not modify it.
Angelo.romano (talk·contribs) - Angelo exemplifies the longstanding trustworthy contributor. His first edit was in March 2004 and he has been regular contributor since November 2004. He is active in articles relating to football (soccer), Italian politics and his native Sicily, and has created or improved countless articles in those areas. I have had the pleasure of working with him at WikiProject Football for the past two years, where he has consistently been a knowledgable and level-headed contributor. He has a sound understanding of policy, as evidenced by his regular addition of reasoned comments to AfD debates, and he has shown that he is more than capable of performing admin-like tasks in a fitting manner, as his work in chasing down sockpuppets in Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kwame Nkrumah demonstrates. Oldelpaso14:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
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: I always thought of admin work in a soft way. User blocks are not a priority to me, unless in exceptional cases such as evident sockpuppets of banned users, like the case Oldelpaso showed in the nomination, or evidently unconstructive edits (such as vandal-only accounts). However I am a bit concerned about the high presence of blatant copyright violation images in the Wikipedia (as I have recently marked many of them) as well as replaceable unfree ones, and the growing slowness in receiving an answer in protection and semi-protection requests. So, in the end, in case the nomination passes, I would not change that much, being the same user than usual but using my additional admin powers tended by the community solely to enforce the current Wikipedia policies. --Angelo16:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I am very proud of my work at U.S. Città di Palermo, a Good Article and probably a potential FA, as well as several other football-related articles. I was recently involved also in Democratic Party (Italy), an article I feel might become a potential Good Article, a kind of miracle in the messy world of Italian politics. Several other interesting contributions of mine I can remind of are a bunch of templates (the football squad template set, the latest version of the Italian cities infobox, and a number of others), as well as several SVG images I designed and created specifically for my work in the Wikipedia. --Angelo16:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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: The Wikipedia is full of potential editing conflicts over controversial issues, the Football (soccer) naming discussion being the latest. However I have always tried to keep a soft and smart approach, always following the policy and avoiding personal attacks and unnecessary edit wars. Other recent heated discussions regarded the naming policy for "national" football teams not representing independent countries, and minor discussions with excessively bold users not following the Manual of Style. --Angelo16:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Angelo.romano before commenting.
Discussion
Support
Support - I very much doubt Angelo will be the busiest admin in the world - he's an extremely good content user and it would be sad anyway if he moved onto soley admin tasks, but I believe that given the tools, he will use them well. I have no doubts that Angelo will help clear the back logs at AfD. Ryan Postlethwaite18:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support – although this user is undoubtedly a (primarily) content-focused editor (not that that's a bad thing - this is an encyclopedia, after all), I can see plenty of participation in the sort of tasks we rely on our Administrators to help out at: WP:AN/I ([59]); WP:RFPP ([60]), and I'm sure I've seen him at WP:AfD as well. All in all, a user who can definitely be trusted with the mop, and (hopefully) make good use of it when we're a little backlogged. Best of luck! Cheers, Anthøny19:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support If you haven't already, set your preferences to force edit summaries for all edits; otherwise, a fine editor who won't abuse the admin tools. (aeropagitica)22:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent editor from everything I have seen, no reason to think that she/she will not make an equally excellent admin. Trusilver05:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support – decent participation in XfD (see here and here), obviously comfortable with process (see here); Angelo has all the makings of an Administrator, and I wish him best of luck! ~ Anthøny09:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Angelo is a big contributor in terms of mainspace edits, and in a quick spot check, I didn't see anything amiss. He seems to have good judgment in football articles. His percent of edit summaries is only about 67% for major edits and I hope he will work to increase that. EdJohnston23:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Support. Angelo has been contributing to Wikipedia for a long time. As others have said, he may not use adminship to as much of an extent as other users do. However, that isn't really a problem. As the goal of Wikipedia is to build an encyclopedia, it's probably good. There's no reason to think that he will abuse adminship. Bart133(t)(c)18:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support after desperately attempting to find a pretext to avoid another Italian becoming admin ;-), I had to surrender: Angelo is simply a too good editor not to be more than perfectly qualified to be a great admin. Also, I'm impressed by his dedication to an often quite pretty annoying topic like Italian politics.--Aldux19:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.
Dev920 (talk·contribs) - Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Dev920, who has been contributing with us since March 2006. She has more than 9400 edits (2500 of them in mainspace and, most impressive, 2004 in user talks, showing a penchant for dialogue). Elected coordinator of the Wikiproject of LGBT Studies, a project with more than 200 members, she has an impressive knowledge of Wikipedia policies and processes. She is a regular at XfD's, and her prodding habits have resulted more than once in a noticeable increase of the quality of an article. She is highly involved in the community, teaching several newcomers to Wikipedia how to contribute and patiently explaining them our ways (she has in fact adopted several users). Add to that that she has written several brilliant FA's and even created a wikiproject. She regularly does a *huge* amount of maintenance, hence the need for the tools. Her previous nomination was eight months ago. Concerns from reviewers seemed to focus in her handling of editing very conflictive articles such as Islam. Dev920 since then has addressed this by stepping away from such articles in which she feels she cannot keep a cool head, showing a great deal of maturity (and it should be pointed out that she actually received an Islamic barnstar for her efforts). She may be very firm when defending policies and opinions (aren't we all?), but always polite, and sometimes she even uses humour to try to de-escalate tense situations, which I think shows how far she has come. Another concern had to do with the creation of a Tory-related project in userspace, which she defended was technically within policy. As she has not repeated any such action, and several reviewers in fact were of the mind that all this user needed was a bit more of time before becoming an admin, I believe 8 months later she is finally ready for the tools. :-) Raystorm(¿Sí?)11:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this nomination and thank Raystorm for having such faith in me. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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: I want to go where admins are needed most – I have noticed there are plenty of admins blocking users, not so many clearing the CSD backlog on a regular basis. I would also like to help out at page semi/un/protection, having been grateful in the past to the admins who do this. I would like my time as an administrator to focus more on the article side of things – protection, deletion, that sort of thing, stuff that often piles up very quickly.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
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 said last RfA that “Conflict is not something I enjoy, but I’m willing to stand up, be counted and enter the fray if the encyclopedia needs it”. Someone interpreted that as saying I was argumentative and willing to force my views on other people, which isn’t true. I believe in vigorous debate, but ultimately, we have a policy of consensus on Wikipedia, which I abide by and if everyone abided by it we’d probably have a much more peaceful community. I think most conflicts I do end up entering is precisely ‘’because’’ someone else refuses to accept the majority consensus – and if that person is me I like to hope that I will happily admit that fact when I realize it. There are some articles which are tagged as within the remit of WP:LGBT that I really don’t agree with, like Buffy the Vampire Slayer, but I accept because I am at odds with the majority of the project’s members.
Generally it’s easier to defuse a potential conflict than run straight into it, and I think I’ve got better at doing that in the past few months, particularly as I now work predominantly in an area, LGBT, that many editors feel quite strongly about. But it is inevitable that people sometimes snap and are incivil, however, and I am no exception. If I did not lose my temper occasionally I would be offering myself as the Messiah, not an administrator. On Talk:Marriage, I utterly lost my rag and got quite angry. I haven’t edited there since. It’s not a pleasant edit to have in one’s history, and I do regret both saying it and working on that article in the first place – too much bickering going on over there. Fortunately it happened over six months ago.
Incidentally, while I have a captive audience, I would like to say that I find the rising levels of harsh, but technically not incivil, comments on Wikipedia, particularly on FACs, extremely disheartening and if anyone knows of how we as a community can reduce this please drop a line on my talk page because I’d like to get involved. See here for some discussion I’ve already had on the topic.
As your previous RfA failed largely on issues of incivility, how do you feel things have changed since then and what steps have you taken to address concerns raised? - Alison☺12:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that the "rampant incivility" of which I was accused in my previous RfA was much exaggerated (and many of the non-opposing votes did point this out). I did, however, take the comments of several users about making harsh comments on board, and I do try to moderate my language before posting now. Constructive discourse is always better than incivility. And where constructive discourse isn't happening, I try to walk away; which I did in the moth example raised below, and which I really don't want to think about anymore. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It is no wonder so many good Wikipedians have no interest in stepping up to help the project at this level. The shameless judgementalism that is consistently displayed at RfA is more troubling than any incivil comments or perceived misinterpretations Dev may be guilty of. I'd encourage editors to look at themselves more closely before tossing stones at Dev or any one else who is up for adminship. Something that isn't supposed to be a big deal, a mop and broom as so many are so fond of saying, has degraded into a cliquish popularity contest. The message seems to be that if you have been involved in contentious article editing or any kind of dispute forget about adminship. Sure, it easy to edit Pokemon crap all day long but the best editors wouldn't waste their time with such drivel, instead that kind of non-controversial work seems to be encouraged at RfA. This is sad. Just my opinion, I am sure many or most here probably disagree but I cannot say that I really care. IvoShandor17:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Dev920 before commenting.
Support. I believe that Dev has learned from past mistakes and that the issues that resulted in opposition at her previous RfA are behind her. Dev's involvement in Wikiproject LGBT Studies has been invaluable and I have always had extremely positive interactions with her. She is experienced in the areas that admins need to be - I'm convinced she will delete only what needs to be deleted and block only those that policy requires be blocked. WjBscribe12:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support: Had a few reservations after some interaction regarding the MfD for WP:BAP but they aren't enough to warrant opposing especially considering all of my past interactions with Dev, which is the reason for the strong support. Surely would make a great admin and would know how to use the tools appropriately. To be honest, for awhile I was a bit concerned that what happened with BAP might have caused Dev to leave the project, glad it did not. : ) IvoShandor13:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Have seen much positive work from this user around the traps, and believe that she deserves the mop and will use it sparingly yet well. Orderinchaos15:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support If Raystorm trusts her, I trust her. I've seen her contributions and I agree with those above: she'll do veeery well. An applause for this candidate!! Kisses --Bucephala18:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support - Dev has been here a long time, and knows policy inside and out. Her contributions have made the english Wikipedia a much better place. If anybody should be made an admin here, and will take the responsibility seriously, it's Dev. I can't recommend her strongly enough. Jeffpw21:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Any issues are in the past now, as shown by your more recent behavior, I see no reason not to Support you. Cheers, Dfrg.msc00:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Everyone should be an administrator. For chaos concerns, see User:A.Z./Imagine. If they're abusive, they can have their tools taken out. (this is a standard message that I'm using to support RfAs and it's not a judgement of Dev's merits: I just think no merits are required) A.Z.00:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Blnguyen. Dev920 can be blunt, but relentless civility is hardly the only factor under consideration; we also need administrators who will make tough calls and, more often than not, make them right. Gutsy, smart, insightful: that's Dev920.Proabivouac02:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Dev has already indicated which field will be graced by the presence. You have already done a lot for wikipedia, and because you're willing to do the thankless deletion job, it makes sense to promote.Bakaman05:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Sure she's rather agressive, but we promoted admins who were worse. I worked with Dev before and she's one of the more brilliant editors here, brilliant in article writing, and very active in talk pages. The main reason why she won't be promoted is that she was unfortunally involved with the esperanza chaos in which she handled very well in the begining, but went downhill. We need more admins who is willing to deal with tough decisions, and I strongly trust her more than any other user. Thanks Jarandawat's sup17:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support she seems like a good user to me. As for the civility concerns, I believe that Dev920 will work on that issue, regardless of the outcome of this RfA. Acalamari18:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Dev920 has shown marked improvement. This was a difficult decision, but I trust that the candidate would now handle themselves better in disputes and keep such disputes separate from their admin tasks. Sometimes blunt-speaking admins are needed. Carcharoth22:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've seen Dev around Wikipedia, and from what I've seen, Dev tends to make excellent edits, and is a fine contributer. I think she'd has shown she would do a wonderful job as an admin.-theblueflamingoSquawk08:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dev is a fantastic contributor and I respect her work deeply. That she remained as civil as she did in response to Ed's repeated baiting during the EA debacle is admirable. However Dev does not appear to have the trust of the community at large, and I find that saddening. In any case I fear that Dev's wonderful work as an article writer would suffer given the mundane pressures of adminship. ~ Riana ⁂15:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, every interaction I've had with Dev has been productive, and I've always found her to be civil and not a mental (which is my chief criteria). Neil╦17:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support as an editor with lots of edits across lots of genres and many interests, she had made a serious effort, paraphasing Jimbo Wales, "not to make The Internet suck." Bearian18:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support She's got wit, humour, friendliness, experience, maturity, assets (well that's a bit broad but anyway), and I'm certain she won't abuse anything. — $PЯINGεrαgђ01:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per Akhilleus; more content-focussed admins are badly needed. Superb editor unfortunately attracting opposes for being willing to make tough calls. 80.176.190.9616:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC) (Moreschi behind a firewall)[reply]
Whole-hearted Support. Dev has shown herself to be a very hard worker and has earned my respect for her many talented accomplishments in coordinating the LGBT Portal, and improving Wikipedia as a whole. I've never found her to be anything less than cooperative and supportive. I also believe she has learned, as we all must do along the way, sometimes by painful experience, that firmness and civility go hand in hand. I think Dev really has the interests of the whole Wikipedia community at heart, and would be a tremendous asset to the whole organization as an administrator.--Textorus22:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. You can't edit the sorts of articles Dev does and not wind up getting into a dispute every once in a while. From what I've seen, most of the animosity has been mutual and this user has shown a willingness to either calm down or step back when the going gets tough. Other than all that, there's no reason to oppose. She's an experienced, knowledgeable, helpful user. -- The_socialisttalk?07:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I can see that Dev is someone who really believes what they fight for, not a sleaze trying to push their own agenda. She would be an excellent addition to the mop up team. Dagomar03:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry Dev, I've got to oppose. I actually quite like you but I really question your maturity and ability to handle conflict. During Wikipedia:Esperanza/Mediation, where I mediated your dispute with Ed, your constant arguing with one one another was quite disruptive (check the mediation page to see what I mean). Dev remove every single comment Ed made to her talk page, which only inflamed the situation[61][62][63]. Then when Ed comes over to your talk page to say he's leaving wikipedia due to the dispute and the fact that he has cancer [64], she removed that as well, which I strongly believe was a really nasty thing to do, and showed a complete lack of empathy [65]. Now don't get me wrong, I think Ed could have handled the whole esparanza dispute better, but I question your judgement by refusing to discuss anything with him and removing any attempt at discussion that Ed made, it makes me think that in a similar situation, you would just hit that block button to stop discussion with you. Ryan Postlethwaite12:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I actually followed that issue when it happened, though I did not participate in it at all. And I should point out that one of the other mediators actually ended up being quite fed up with Ed's actions (check out her talk page now), as he ignored her answering comments when Ed complained about what you are mentioning. I'm sorry the guy has cancer, but I'm not getting why deleting some of his persistent and repetitive messages about having to change *immediately* some phrases about a dead project implies she'll be a block-happy admin. That's an extreme leap. The issue was at Mediation, and he should have made his points there, as Dev did. And Ed made some kinda disparaging remarks about Dev at another users' talk, which I view as much more inflamatory than merely removing virtually the same comment again and again from one's own talkpage. Dev actually explained you how she felt about the whole situation and why she had erased those comments when you asked, and you're entitled to your own opinion on the matter, but Dev was not the only user feeling harassed at the time due to Ed's actions. Raystorm(¿Sí?)13:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — This is a joke, right? Absolutely not, forgive me, but I think you'd bring Ragnarok. You have serious ownership issues[66][67][68] You've demonstrated to me that you have an ego problem and frankly I only think you're interested in yourself (see for example this). Edit: Ryan also brings up some good points. Matthew13:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A dispute that was settled in a couple hours? Surely most of the admins on Wikipedia have far worse conversations in their histories. Its not fair to condemn someone for such mild actions, I am not commenting on the ownership issues you cited because I haven't checked them out. IvoShandor13:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just looked at the link, the talk page conversation you cited ended in a couple hours with both parties in a much more civil state than it began. While it may have been part of an ongoing dispute you pointed that part out specifically, if its out of context the context should be provided, in my opinion. IvoShandor13:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I thought the discussion made it quite clear it was part of something ongoing, but as I stated, it's an example. Matthew13:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the previous threads and yes it seemed to be a dispute but it didn't seem all that major to me, anyway, just commenting to spur discussion here really. Of course you can oppose for whatever reason. : ) IvoShandor13:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Issues with civility brought up in the previous RfA have clearly not been addressed, as is evident in this edit just six days ago [69]. In this edit as well as the ones above, she is consistently disrespectful, condescending and bearing an attitude that is the polar opposite of what an admin should have. Trusilver14:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to talk about that, because that user's comment and the subsequent ones which followed, all of which determinedly ignored my original point and advocated I leave a helpless animal to die in pain is not something I wish to think about again. I am not being consdescending, I am being quite serious, and that's why if you read the entire conversation I clearly stopped reading it after the first two comments. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did read your entire conversation, and my position stands. I feel that an admin should be able to remain civil even when provoked. You have proven that you cannot. Trusilver20:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ryan. The civility concerns are worrying, and appear to be ongoing. Admins must be able to maintain a calm demeanor. Xoloz16:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I was originally thinking about support but am now opposing due to how the user interacts with people she disagrees with. T Rex | talk17:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interaction here is pretty unacceptable for an admin candidate. Example: "unhelpful and stupid", "you were not listening in your arrogance"? Still needs some work on WP:CIVIL. RxS20:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per civility and ownership issues. An admin isn't infallible, but they need a stronger head on their shoulders than what I see here. Jmlk1722:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The civility and ownership issues raised above are enough to give me pause in supporting this editors' application for adminship. Admins have to exemplify the policies and guidelines that govern their choices and actions; this editor does not do so. (aeropagitica)22:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry mate, but a look through your last 50 edits (I clicked the contribs link) shows multiple edit summaries that could be taken badly, and beg the question; how bad could the edit be? Rather then cite all of them (some of them weren't actually that bad), I'm going to opposer per two diffs. [70] - A user who doesn't really "get" the concept of constructive criticism (that's how I see it) isn't someone I can trust as an admin. Admins need to be able to learn from their mistakes. [71] - Biting. I don't care that he isn't really a "new" user, or that he has notes on his talk page (about COI, NOT about OR, mind you), the edit summary there is still unacceptable in my eyes. Therefore, because of civility, I must oppose. GiggyUCP00:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ryan and others. User seems to have serious WP:OWN issues and lacks the maturity to approach heated disputes with a calm, neutral attitude required of someone with block/ban powers. VanTucky(talk)03:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - incivility has been a problem in the past with this user, and I don't believe that she can handle the kind of concerted trolling and attacks that get thrown at admins. I also feel that admins need to be held to a higher standard than normal users when it comes to dealing with users in a civil and moderate fashion, and I don't see this happening with this user. Please don't be discouraged by this -- it may not be a reflection on you, but rather your history. Just keep working hard and prove my fears unfounded. --Haemo07:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose... Not the worst incivility or intransigence I've ever seen in an RfA candidate, but the fact that there are things like some of the diffs above in the last couple of weeks doesn't inspire confidence. If I'm a new user, let alone a regular, coming to your talk page with a reasonable complaint over an admin action, I would hope I would be able to have a constructive discussion. I'm not sure that would be the case at the moment. Grandmasterka09:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't believe in political correctness. Biting commentary doesn't bother me, and I think we are all a bit thin-skinned about civility and personal attacks. But calling an edit "stupid" goes somewhat over the line, but only marginally so. But violating WP:OWN just is not acceptable. However, I think backing down a bit on these issues will allow you to succeed in an RfA someday. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions19:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The comment that was a response to did not like that racism to me but rather addressed to systematic bias on wikipedia. I can see it would be possible to take the comment badly but believe an assumption of good faith in the circumstances would not have been impossible and what we should be striving for especially in areas like AFD which can be high pressure. Davewild20:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Oakshade's comment, and think that Dev920 should be admonished for her response, which reeks of hypocrisy - if she was from Singapore, her comments about Muslims could have landed her in jail. When articles on non-American topics are nominated for deletion (or speedy deleted) by Wikipedians who are unfamiliar with the topic, Wikipedia's systemic bias worsens. Having participated in several AFDs on articles pertaining to Singapore, some of which were started by editors with a vendetta against the Little Red Dot, this is a very real and serious problem on Wikipedia. --J.L.W.S. The Special One06:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If by "systemic bias" is meant that we're allowed to say things one is not allowed to say in Singapore, this can only be a good thing.
Incidentally, Islamis FA now, and I suspect Dev920's role in deleting the Muslim Guild played a significant role in this. One thing you'll increasingly find on Islam-related articles is editors approaching Wikipedia as an academic enterprise rather than a battleground of the religions or a theatre for geopolitical grievances. There is still POV-pushing, naturally, but it's much smarter and better-cited than it once was, producing a higher-quality product.
It is easy to avoid controversy: stay away from controversial (often this means significant) articles. Dev920 spent time in what was a hopelessly dysfunctional morass and worked to improve it, earning her enemies (some of whom may be seen in her first RfA) through no fault of her own. Most editors, most admins, and certainly most prospective RfA candidates - avoid involvement in such spaces for this very reason. I have a lot more respect for Dev920's record than for someone who remains unfailingly placid while editing articles of little significance - this kind of standard will earn (and has earned) us many flatliners who freeze like deer in proverbial headlights when faced with contentious issues. That most administrators won't so much as touch this space with an eleven-foot pole isn't a sign of functionality, actually.
Nor is relentless civility, while in itself useful, necessarily a sign of character. It's quite easy to civilly stand by, for example, while other people are abused, to civilly do nothing when faced with a complicated sockpuppet report, or re the diff you quoted, to civilly not care when the encyclopedia is a shambles. I believe that Dev920 won't do that, and I don't see anyone here doubting it. I can appreciate the WP:OWN issues, and I oppose personal attacks, but this civility fetishism is really damaging. You're almost better off being borderline incompetent than a genius with a sharp tongue and an opinion. That's not how great works are made.Proabivouac06:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that nobody is perfect, and am willing to overlook occasional, minor lapses of civility. However, some of the diffs cited by oppose voters are very recent, and show that Dev920's incivil remarks are not isolated incidents, but a recurrent problem.
On Wikipedia, systemic bias refers to uneven coverage (for example, US-centrism). It has nothing to do with Singapore's alleged lack of freedom of speech. Nominating articles on non-American topics which you are unfamiliar with for deletion (as Dev920 did) worsens Wikipedia's systemic bias. Oakshade's comment was not racist; it simply addresses the issue of systemic bias.
Yes, I'm aware of that, and I see your point about the nomination. However, it is quite silly to suggest that what might land one in jail in Singapore should play any role in determining the standards of this community.Proabivouac20:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on, you're saying because I'm English, I may not edit or AfD articles outside of my culture? Oh, sorry, supposed to keeping silent on stufflikethat, aren't I? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop making strawman arguments like these, you are only exacerbating the situation. There was no apparent racist intention when the user made the statement. Wikipedia does have a US-centric bias (although I do not comment on whether it was relevant to the issue at hand) and saying so can in no way be considered racist. — Nearly Headless Nick{C}17:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dev920, I must concur that you are handling this discussion rather poorly. It is plain that this RfA will not succeed, due to a real flaw in your approach, which you're currently perpetuating instead of addressing. If there is a Dev920 3, people will certainly look at this discussion. They may agree or disagree with what you're saying - as it happens I agree with Nick that this argument is a straw man - but more salient than that is that the tone is unfortunate. Look around this page: that's enough to keep your from adminship regardless of any other aspect of your record (most of which, unfortunately, isn't on display here.)Proabivouac20:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, you misunderstand. You may edit or AfD any articles from any culture you like. What you may not do is characterise a perfectly valid point about systemic bias as racism. Doing so shows misunderstanding of our policies. Doing so and then continuing to defend it here shows a lack of reflection. Please have a think about what people are saying to you here and try to learn from it. --John17:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As John said, you may edit or AfD articles outside your culture (although I advise you to do a quick Google test and ask a relevant WikiProject before AfDing articles on topics you are unfamiliar with). Falsely accusing another editor of racism, however, cannot be excused. --J.L.W.S. The Special One02:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Reservations about user's suitability for being given admin tools. We've all seen personality flaws balloon into major problems when admin powers have been granted in the past to certain other individuals. - MSTCrow19:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per what seems to be a lack of maturity. I can't believe some saying "civility concerns are insignificant". Unless we want to scare the rest of the world off, and leave editing of this encyclopedia to a selected in-crowd, then civility is of the utmost importance for an active editor, especially an admin. -- Renesis (talk) 20:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Sorry to say the WP:CIVILITY issue is my major concern. As an administrator, people will look to you as a leader and a mediator. In these roles, I believe you need a little more experience. Shoessss | Chat 12:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If people look to administrators as leaders and mediators, that's their mistake and their fault, and Dev shouldn't have to be the one to pay for it. They're not leaders nor mediators, they're just users with four or five extra tools. People must choose their leaders and mediators based on whether they think they have the qualities needed for such a task, not on whether they are an administrator or not. And they shouldn't choose for adminship people who they think are good leaders and mediators, because it's not admin's job to be that. Any user can be a leader and a mediator, and administrators can do a great job even though they have never mediated or lead anything. A.Z.18:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be civil whether I'm an admin or not. I've had literally thousands of interactions with other users and I've been rude to approximately four of them. Given that's statistically insignificant for research purposes, I've always been a bit baffled that somehow this makes me rampantly incivil. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, it only takes one bad incident to cause a serious problem. With administrators, it is not a good idea to take any chances. Captainpanda03:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Adminship is not one-strike-you-are-out game. Otherwise, Wikipedia would have no admins at all. Perfect people do not exist, unfortunately. BeitOr20:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - Dev, I like your work on the GLBT wikiproject, but I'm sorry, there are enough legitimate concerns here to bother me. - Philippe | Talk21:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral – both the arguments for and against your Adminship are equally balanced, so I'm not really sure what to think: you've written an FA, but you've been accused of WP:OWN violations; you've been a top contributor to a very successful WikiProject, but you've been uncivil. I'm not saying I firmly believe that every oppose argument is correct, and I don't wish to degrade your work in any way, but the trust factor just isn't there for me. ~ Anthøny09:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.
Diez2 (talk·contribs) - I have been editing rather actively for about 7-8 months now, and over that span of time, I have come to greatly know Wikipedia policy. I have done a lot of things, but I mainly work in the notability, anti-vandalism, and editing abuse departments. I used to do a lot of new page watching, and now I do a lot of RC patrol. I am the founder of Wikiproject Notability, an effort to sort the 10,000+ borderline articles into "Notable" and "Non-notable" bins. I used to work as the "director" of WP:ACID as well.
One shortcoming that you may notice in Q2 is that I don't edit articles very often. I do have a 1000 mainspace edit count mostly due to reverting edits, and I have a 1200+(correction, 1000+) deleted edits count due to all the new pages I tagged with a db template, but I really don't do much in the department of article contributing. However, I do know a good article (and a bad one) when I see it, as proven by my WP:GAC work and my Special:Newpages work. After all, administrators are maintenance workers. Anyway, feel free to comment, support, or critique me in the discussion below. Thanks! Diez218:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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: I would work with WP:AIV, WP:RPP, (which can accumulate a backlog very quickly), closing AfDs and help enforce CheckUser results and ArbCom decisions. It may seem like a lot, but I can devote my time to each one.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: As I stated above, my best contributions to Wikipedia aren't to an article, but to maintenance around the Wikipedia space portion. I do enjoy working in WP:GAC, although I have found that I have less time to work with it as I did before. I also feel that my edit reverts and newpage tagging are some of my best work, because that work only goes to help Wikipedia maintain its quality of articles.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: Occasionally, I have reverted edits that were not vandalism, but looked like it. I am usually able to keep a cool head about it. If I am indeed wrong, I simply apoligize and move on. Also, If I am right, I do not gloat over the other user waving a banner saying "I'm right and you're wrong." I simply state how they are wrong using policy in a civil manner and move on.
4. Could you explain under what circumstances you feel it would be appropriate to block a user for vandalism who has not been given a "final warning"?
A: Well, under WP:AIV policy, a vandal has to be given that "final warning" before he/she can be reported there. However, if the user violated WP:3RR, is a vandal sockpuppet, an open proxy IP, or violated an ArbCom or Community-sanctioned decision, a block would be necessary. Diez223:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. What are, in your opinion, the three most important policies on Wikipedia, and why?
Just to be clear on this question, are you talking strictly about policies, or are you including guidelines as well? Diez218:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A. Sorry for the delay... One of the most important policies is Wikipedia:Consensus, because everything, from the Village Pump to the WikiProjects to the AFDs and even this RfA, all works off of consensus. As outlined in numerous essays, consensus is what makes Wikipedia tick. (Of course, consensus can and has been superceded by IAR, but only when applying common sense and good faith.) The second policy would be Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View. Wikipedia is not a forum or a debate area for which different sides can be heard, but rather, it's a place where the facts can be told without taking sides. I've seen how this can be hard to do, but it must be enforced or else it will make articles look as stupidly as this, where the 2 extremes are so far apart from each other that it's impossible to really tell what is fact and fiction. (for the record, this dispute is currently undergoing arbitration) Finally the 3rd "policy" (it's really a guideline) is Wikipedia:Notability. You can see my reason for this here, and although my comment here is a response to various statements made by a user, it does cover this point. I have worked plenty with notability, and I find that it is an extremely necessary guideline for the maintenance and well-being of Wikipedia. Diez204:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. What is the importance of the IAR policy, and when will you use it/not use it?
A:When a user becomes so bogged down in red tape or if the rules do not permit him/her to make or do something in good faith, then that user should ignore all the rules bogging him/her down and just "do the right thing," if I may take the words of another rfa candidate. For example, Trusilver mentioned that if a user only had 20 edits which were all vandalism, you shouldn't have to just leave a "final warning" on the user talk page and leave it alone; you can go straight to a block. Diez218:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another (and probably better) example is when I have to decide the consensus on AFD noms. The vote tally would come into play, but the major decider would be the arguments that each side makes. Hypothetically, if the minority side did make a better argument than the majority side, and if it seemed common sensical to follow the minority side, then IAR would come into play. Diez202:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: Yes, I will. I did not realize that an admin named "Deiz" existed (not that I really bothered to check :-)). I don't exactly know what I'll change it to, but I won't deal with it until after this RfA. Diez218:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I realize changing your username while this RFA is open would only cause greater confusion, but I don't think your decision to change it should be contingent on whether the RFA passes or fails. —freak(talk)19:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know, but even if this RfA fails, I'll probably try again in the future, and I don't want my username to cause any confusion. Diez204:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I don't understand this question. Are you asking me to post a résumé here? If so, then what should I post? Please analyze my contributions and logs to get a good idea of who I am and what I've done. Thank you. Diez205:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Would you be open to Admin recall? If so, under what conditions? If not, why not?
A. I do agree with WP:RECALL, although I did not know of its existence before now. I see it as a nicer way of getting an admin with supposedly bad judgement (such as one that violates policy) to resign without having to file an RfC, and then an RfAr to have a user desysopped. It seems similar to what Wikisource does with its administrators. Once you pass something equivalent to an RfA there, you are granted adminship for 1 year. After that 1 year has passed, a "confirmation discussion" is held over whether or not to keep you as an admin. Usually, these discussions pass, and the user is held as an admin for another year. The only difference is that these discussions are scheduled, and do not result due to someone saying (and others agreeing) that you have bad judgement. Finally, as I see it, admin recall is not handled lightly. Only 7 admins have been nominated for a recall, and only 1 has actually been recalled (who was later resysopped in another RfA), since this program has started. In a nutshell: WP:RECALL is a way to politely cut through the red tape and ask an admin to resign before things get ugly. Diez205:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I forgot to add the conditions :-). I would let something happen like Crzrussian's recall, where he let any admin vote, and chose the votes he thought came from users in good standing, per the definiton given on WP:RECALL's page. If 6 users in "good standing" came forth and said that I needed to be recalled, then I would accept the petition and ask the stewards to desysop me. Diez206:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Diez2 before commenting.
Discussion
I can't help but feel that having a User:Deiz and a User:Diez2 who are both admins is bound to cause confusion. Whatever the outcome of this RfA, may I suggest that you consider asking for a new username at WP:CHU - you'll keep your preferences and contrib history. I know its a hastle, but I'm not convinced two admins with such similar names is a good idea... WjBscribe06:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support
Support. You are well qualified, and your involvement with the wikipedia space (which really makes the other spaces run smoothly) is exemplary. J-stanTalk19:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support—Diez is definitely somebody I'd be happy to have working alongside me as an Administrator: he has an excellent knowledge of policy and guidelines, has contributed to some great projects, tried his hand at XfDs, and is courageous enough to admit that he's not an article writer at heart. Best of luck, mate, and I hope to be seeing you with the mop in a week's time! Cheers, Anthøny20:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I for one would prefer more mainspace edits, but because of this user's strong efforts elsewhere in the project, I would have to support. There's more to this encyclopedia than building its content, we have to make sure it's done properly too. This user has made great strides in seeing that this happens, and it is for that reason I would have to support.The Kensington BlondeTalk22:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone should be an administrator, and then have their tools taken out according to community consensus if they become abusive, only to have a second chance within a few months, and so on ad infinitum, unless they either become a non-abusive administrator or give up. A.Z.18:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That would not be effective, as we would have to clean up messes created by new users who blocked productive ditors and deleted featured articles and there would be chaos. But, alas, this is not the place to discuss this. --Boricuaeddie20:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I feel self nomination is okay as normally asking others to nominate involves backdoor canvassing.Feel no reason to oppose.Harlowraman10:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - good editor, not sure about the concept that every speedy delete tag should automatically equate to a user talk warning - if someone is creating a large quantity of nonsense pages, they could just be given a final warning. Addhoc11:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, to balance out Kurt's stupid vote below. And because I think Diez2 is a) not a mental and b) could use the tools, so will be fine. Neil╦11:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems like a good editor, no reason to oppose, has done good work and would use the mop well (anyone willing to take on notability backlog in a sensible, non-blanket kind of way earns my respect). Orderinchaos09:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Good answers to the additional questions (if somewhat terse answers to the standard ones), and the issues raised below don't bother me. Dekimasuよ! 15:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)Changed to neutral. Dekimasuよ!01:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom and subject to a name change to avoid confusion. Pedro's concerns have been adequately addressed as far as I can see. --John18:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC) Changed to neutral.[reply]
Support - Looks like he could use the delete button to remove junk. I find the oppose reasons not at all compelling. I believe he'd be a net gain to the project, having the tools. Friday(talk)20:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Appears to be dedicated, willing, and able to help keep the proect running smoothly as an admin. Cla6820:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support per the nom and users promise to change their username. Looks like a good candidate, needs the tools.--Sandahl 21:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC) Changed to Neutral.--Sandahl03:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We were all new once, too. New people make mistakes. You've done it, I've done it, and, Diez2 did it, too. And, this user was honest and upfront about it, to boot. Not to mention, most of the cited issues were months to nearly a year ago. I just don't see a reason why I wouldn't trust this user with the mop... I hope, some day, it's not held against me, that I forgot something... Particularly, when there's a bot out there that does it anyhow... (I know, I CSD a lot too, I've seen the bot...) --SXT406:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Oppose I have a 1200+ deleted edits count due to all the new pages I tagged with a db template fine - yet a review of your last two thousand contribs shows no warnings to any users that their article had been tagged for speedy deletion. This sugests either you have not made these 1000+ CSD tags but I assume the faith you just simply don't bother warning - which is strong enough for me to oppose as it shows a total lack of courtesy, something essential in an admin. Sorry. Pedro | Chat 19:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I should clarify, I used to do newpage editing, which is why those edits don't show up in my last 2000. Diez219:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, indeed warning do show up, vandalism warnings - and the 98 edits to WP:AIV are good. However simple numbers re:beyond the last 2000 - candidate has made 1290 user talk page contribs. The candidate asserts 1200 + speedy tags. A quick review shows numerous talk page edits in batches regarding project work. Therefore the candidate has not advised users in by far the majority of cases of the speedy tag,(diffs to show he has are of course welcome) hence my oppose stands. Sorry. Pedro | Chat 19:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize there is a bot that warns people of speedy deletions, right? [73] While it's nice for the tagger to notify the author, it certainly isn't required. Also, looking at the user's deleted edits, an absurd number are in fact speedy tags. - auburnpilottalk
Oppose — I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger. While I have no reason to explicitly think this may be the case with you, it is not a risk I am willing to take. Kurt Weber00:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I view pretending that you don't want to be an admin and waiting for someone to nominate you so it doesn't look you want power as psychopathic. Plus, people who like power are welcome to be editors and administrators as much as people that don't. A.Z.20:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I must ask you to look at Special:Contributions/Diez2 from 16:04 16 November 2006. The majority of my edits before this date are user talk edits, and the majority of those edits are indeed warnings to users about their about-to-be-deleted pages. Diez201:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In an effort to get some hard numbers on this, I looked through previous deletion tags and checked for warnings. What I found is on the talk page.--Chaser - T04:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The reason I asked question 4 was because I feel very strongly that a good administrator working with AIV (or a good administrator working anywhere for that matter) is one that can discern when their own judgment supercedes policy. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy - Wikipedia policy exists to perpetuate the encyclopedia, not vice versa. For administrators working in anti-vandalism, my first question is "when this administrator sees a commercial link spammer whose only contribution is adding links to twenty articles but he's only on a first warning, is he going to discern that this is a vandalism only account? or Is he going to say 'nope! have to have a level 4 warning first!' Process is important, but so is the ability to make snap judgments for yourself - your answer to my question has not satisfied me that you are yet able or willing to make those judgments. You are an excellent editor, but this time I'm going to say nay.Trusilver04:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose- per Trusilver. If a user's vandalized over 10 pages but only has one warning, he/she should still be blocked, as he/she obviously shows no signs of stopping. If you're not willing to do that (as you stated in your answer to question 4), then I do not trust you with administrator rights/buttons/powers/tools, etc. --Boricuaeddie16:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I respect and understand your oppose votes, but I think I misunderstood the question as worded. I thought that you were talking about other ways that a vandal could get blocked, and not about skipping the red tape and going straight for a block. Contrary to Trusilver and Boricuaeddie, I will block someone straight up for vandalism if he has only 20 edits that are all vandalism. Once again, I think that I just misunderstood the question. Diez218:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose- I first encountered this editor when he prodded the article of legendary romance author Anne Stuart for deletion [75][76]. It was a one sentence article then, but had he done the slightest amount of research he would've found this is one of the most popular romance novelists in history. Luckily this was caught as this likely would've made the press. Someone who would exhibit such reckless behavior should not be an administrator. --Oakshade23:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this was a mistake, and I realized it as such (otherwise I would have sent it to AFD), but you've got to admit, back in November I only had about 1 month of experience under my belt, and people do indeed make mistakes. I even made a few mistakes the first time I started nominating articles for AFD (back around November-December). People do make mistakes sometimes, and this was one of them. Diez202:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to point out, that that was almost a year ago. Diez2 seems to have improved GREATLY since then. --SXT406:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per a general lack of experience that has manifested in several instances of a disconcerting supersession of due process (see pedro). This user needs a wider range of experience before I trust their judgement with admin powers. VanTucky(talk)03:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I don't understand this; I'm getting oppose votes for "following the process" (see Trusilver), and then I'm getting other oppose votes for not following the process? I really don't understand. Diez203:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't really speak for Tru, but what I take both arguments to mean is that we don't trust your judgement. Trusilver doesn't think you understand when and how to apply WP:IAR, and I concur with Pedro's statements about your lack of adherence to the letter and spirit of policy. VanTucky(talk)03:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me point out once again that I have indeed warned the majority of my CSD tagging (which is what Pedro's vote is about, see talk page), and that it is indeed not required (since we are following the "adherence to the letter") for a user talk warning to be placed on one's talk page. Diez215:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose. The answer to Q6, as expanded, is troubling. The rule for AfD is to weigh the arguments; nose-counting is the lazy approach. Considering the present arguments over deletion and IAR, and the candidate's interest in deletion, he really should understand our policies better. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson18:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As stated in the answer to Q6, the vote tally does play a part, but the major decider is the arguments that each side makes, and where consensus leads. I would only let the vote tally play a very small part in my decision. Diez219:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think opening this on Kmweber demonstrates some poor judgement. I personally do not agree with Kurt's voting patterns, and have tried to engage him on his talk page... but I do not think opening an RfC on him will bring about a situation where this user will feel a need to become more constructive in his participation. I also think that you could have held off on engaging him until after the close of this RfA. Hiberniantears18:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did not start that RfC solely because of his oppose to this RfA, but because he has opposed the last 25 self-nominations for RfA, despite notification after notification to take his arguments to the talk pages and/or the village pump, and not to continually violate WP:POINT. Diez219:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Van and Hiberniantears above, would like to see more due process and diligence, and on the RFC issue, sure we don't all agree with Kurt, but everyone is entitled to their opinion(albeit misguided). Dureo19:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Oppose; per the answer to Q6. AfD is not a vote, thus ignoring a count of !votes would not be an application of IAR. If the candidate believes that AfD discussions are supposed to be closed based on a count of !votes, then the candidate clearly is not prepared to be closing them. Heather00:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Clear consensus shouldn't be broken merely by common sense and good faith (Q5), and this user misunderstands the AfD process if he cites IAR to determine consensus. The RfC is a complete waste of time. –Pomte16:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Changed position from oppose after expanded explanation of Q4. I still am not certain of this editor's judgement, but I can no longer justify an "oppose" position. Trusilver05:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral —freak(talk) 19:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC) I suppose I should explain that my reason for changing to neutral is also in light of the candidate's reaction to Kurt Weber. —freak(talk)10:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I am withholding support due to the response to Q6 (and partly to the Q5, per Pomte). When closing AfDs, the only role of the 'tally' is to serve as a caution to the closer (e.g. before closing as "delete" a discussion where the 'tally' is 10 to 1 in favour of keeping, the closer should consider whether his/her understanding of policy or evaluation of the consensus may be incorrect). However, the fact that the candidate mentioned Wikipedia:Notability in Q5 means I can't oppose. — Black Falcon(Talk)18:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.
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. WjBscribe00:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. DurovaCharge!15:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. --Elonka15:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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: [77] 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.
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.
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.
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.
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? --Elonka22:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. --Elonka22:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 Postlethwaite09:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. [78]Deiztalk09:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. --Elonka22:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. DurovaCharge!01:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. DurovaCharge!03:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. --Elonka17:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 ;) TwentyYears08:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. --Elonka17:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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! :) --Elonka02:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. --Elonka06:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(addendum) Some people outside of this nomination page have asked me to clarify my standards for deletion. My answer is pretty simple, and is in line with the standard caution that is on every new page screen, which says, "Articles that do not cite reliable published sources are likely to be deleted." I am in full support of that statement. All else being equal, if I have a question in my mind about a subject, I am going to check, "Are there third-party sources?" If an article has even one solid third-party source which affirms the subject's notability, to my knowledge, I have never tagged such an article for speedy-deletion. If, however, an article is a short stub with no sources, or the only source is to a commercial website, then yes, I have occasionally tagged such articles for deletion. There are other factors involved (BLP, NPOV, etc.), but the simple question of, "Are there reliable sources?" is probably my biggest criterion. Hope that helps clarify, Elonka07:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.[79] 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,[80] 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! --Elonka18:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Gnangarra03:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. --Elonka05:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. :) Elonka03:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
19.: Elonka, you said "The primary reason that I want tools, is so that I can see deleted edits, and be able to better participate at WP:DRV". One would imagine that you'd have a lot of edits already at DRV. From your history of more than 2 years of 30,000 edits, you've had only 11 edits to WP:DRV. How do you explain that? You could make your argument if you already had a lot of edits at DRV, but thats not the case, its just 11 edits. --Matt57(talk•contribs)01:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: There are several times that I have wanted to participate at WP:DRV, but because by its very nature, the discussion was about an article that was already deleted, I couldn't see the article. Just take a look, most of the articles that are being discussed, are redlinks. :/ This is also frustrating because I manage multiple other MediaWiki databases, where I have full access to everything, right down to the LocalSettings.php file. So sometimes on Wikipedia, I feel like I'm trying to bake a cake, while I'm wearing oven mitts. It's a "muffled" feeling. I already know technically how to use admin tools here, but I just don't have permission to use them. So that's one of the reasons that I'd like admin tools, is to allow me to be more effective, by using tools that I'm already familiar with. --Elonka02:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
20 To what extent is an administrator justified in overruling our policies in order to satisfy her own ethical convictions. especially convictions that Wikipedia is obliged to be sensitive or considerate? Is she warranted in ignoring consensus, or in removing or deleting well-sourced material? When would you take such action?SeptentrionalisPMAnderson01:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: An admin who is "first on the scene" may need to make a quick decision on something, but just as I mentioned in my answer to #7, there is still the need for oversight and after-action review. In the case that a situation has been reviewed, and the consensus is clear, the admin's job is to support that consensus, even if they may personally disagree with it. If they feel that something is unethical, then they can participate in the discussion (at which point they should no longer be using their tools on that issue), and try to build a consensus. If something is truly unethical, other community members are going to agree. --02:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
21 Although the Kaaba issue gives rise to this question, I am not concerned only with it; but also with how you would approach the whole issue of Biographies of Living Persons (unless you would simply avoid it). Are we bound merely to have reliably sources for controversial statements about living people, or is there a penumbra beyond that? SeptentrionalisPMAnderson01:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: I would not see it as my place as admin, to promote my personal view on BLP -- I would simply enforce whatever the current Wikipedia policies/consensus were at the time. --Elonka02:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Elonka before commenting.
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. WaltonOne16:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 Sidaway16:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. WaltonOne11:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 Sidaway12:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Orderinchaos23:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. --Elonka23:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.Tesson04:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.—JehochmanTalk11:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 [92]. 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.Tesson16:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.Tesson14:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.Tesson15:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.[93] He started making changes at 19:49.[94] At 20:38, he even made a point of putting his site in ALL CAPS.[95] I was actually running into edit conflicts with him, for my next expansion edit, at 21:52.[96] At 21:57, I put a (gentle) warning on his talkpage (in combination with some off-wiki admonitions)[97] A few weeks later, he posted some requested changes at the talkpage, including that he wanted certain sourced information removed.[98] 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.[99] You can see another (mild) admonishment from me in the following edit summary.[100] 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. --Elonka18:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. JehochmanTalk19:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. JehochmanTalk03:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Matt, you seriously have to chill. That sentence you're quoting is grossly out of context (diff). It comes after 6 paragraphs of fairly sound advice for a newbie. Even the paragraph you're quoting actually says: "Keep things balanced. Try not to focus on your dispute, but also spend time editing other parts of Wikipedia at the same time. For every talkpage message you generate about the dispute, try to have 5 or more edits on other non-dispute-related articles. Prove that you're not a single-purpose account". You read "game the system", I read "don't spend your time obsessing about disputes" which, in many ways, is what I suggest you should do. Pascal.Tesson04:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I really think everyone who said "Oppose per Danny" should take note of the fact that Danny provided no evidence of any kind whatsoever to support his attack on the candidate (which, if it were not in an RfA, would be a comment in violation of WP:NPA). It shocks and saddens me that certain people can get around with flinging accusations like that; if the average Wikipedian made such a comment, they would be severely criticised. WaltonOne14:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The RfA is going to close soon but I'm going to make some comments anyway. In email to me, Elonka has said that she doesnt care about the delete/block part of being an admin:
I don't really care about the delete/block stuff, but I'll help out if needed.
Um ok - isnt that what being an admin is all about? Blocks and deletions? She says she wants to be an admin so she can take better part in DRV (something that she's mentioned here repeatedly):
Mainly I want the tools so that I can participate at DRV
Ok well, thats easy to deal with. Make a copy of the article before its likely to get deleted. Keep a close watch on all AfD's. Problem solved. You dont need to be an admin if the only thing you care about is being able to see deleted articles. Besides remember, the majority of people at DrV's are unable to see the deleted article so why should you have any extra advantage over them? Also if an article has been deleted, usually the decision is right. It sounds like you just want to extend the dispute instead of resolving it (something I noticed about you at the Kaaba images issue too). --Matt57(talk•contribs)13:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.Gungadin15:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support, for extensive experience managing online communities as evidenced by this comment:[101], and for maintaining composure [102] when I essentially suggested that she might have a COI (when she didn't). JehochmanTalk16:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Shellbabelfish16:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Darkspots17:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Sup?17:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Support. Opposed last time, but record of contributions looks very good since the RfA. Was actually contemplating a nomination myself. IronGargoyle17:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. EdJohnston17:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Philwelch19:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.Tesson14:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. —Anastalk?21:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Supported before, happy to support again. Nothing has happened in the intervening time to change my mind. Agent 8621:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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[106]. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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]
(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. --Elonka21:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Haukur02:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Zivko8509:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. MastCellTalk03:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 sins04:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. daveh4h07:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Jarandawat's sup19:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 HarrisonTalk20:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Flyer2221:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Maybe a bit too eager to reach compromise in my mind, but overall a grand editor, always remarkably civil.--Aldux22:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. i was surprised to discover that she wasn't already an admin. i would also reiterate the sentiments expressed by Raystorm. ITAQALLAH23:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 - T05:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. WjBscribe05:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. EnsRedShirt15:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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! -JustinHall15:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. PabloTalk | Contributions00:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Trusilver05:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. MrPrada05:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. - BanyanTree07:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Rebecca08:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.) - BanyanTree00:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.Winklethorpetalk11:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. --Gmaxwell16:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. -- PKtm16:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing bureaucrat: user inactive since 11 April when s/he announced his/her resignation on the talk page of Danny's RfA. [108]. User made no other edits today and has not edited outside Danny and Elonka's RfAs since 31 March.[109]Sarah03:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Scott04:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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: [110]) 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. Sarah13:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. DurovaCharge!14:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.[111][112] 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. --Elonka17:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 recentdiscussions!). 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 allassume 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Bassdemandez00:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(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 popups07:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. --JayHenry01:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Orderinchaos06:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. --JayHenry20:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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'blis03:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. SeraphimbladeTalk to me05:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 ▪◦▪ЅiREXTalk07:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Grandmasterka08:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Zivko8509:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. DurovaCharge!14:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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♥Gold14:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 helsing23:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. --Elonka23:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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♥Gold23:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Elonka is a perfect fit for Wikipedia and will integrate very well with the culture and environment. --Jscott16:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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! --Tom16:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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! Lmcelhiney18:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Captainpanda19:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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! SergeantBolt21:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 - T04:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Oggleboppiter08:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Gnangarra09:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. --AndyFinkenstadt18:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. — Deckiller22:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 Ailitalk23:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. -- DS1953talk23:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Bladestorm00:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Lynn02:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.[120]
That is absolutely absurd, I have no professional relationship with her. You should refrain from making false statements about people just to discredit her supporters and make your argument sound stronger. This is especially true for assertions that have zero evidense what so ever. I'm a software engineer for a networking company, to the best of my knowledge she's a video game developer. My own professional life has been pretty thoroughly documented in the media (much more than I would have liked), so do tell, what led you to believe this? I think its incredibly unethical for you to make such an assertion without evidense, so please demonstrate that you werent just trying to discredit a supporter by making some BS claim that I'm basically just a meat puppet for someone. Our paths have crossed from time to time, but almost all of my interaction with her is with regards to wikipedia; thats why I felt that I had an opinion worth voicing on this. I watch the RFA list, when I see an RFA that I know anything about I comment. The first one was for Danny, I'm not sure if there was anyone that didn't have some opinion on that one. This time I notice that Elonka is up, she's helped me on Wikipedia more than any other person, so of course I have an opinion for this RFA. So I ask you to show any evidence that I'm a meat puppet or apologize and cut it out.--Michael Lynn08:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SMcCandlish, how on earth did my question "bash" anyone? There have been many COI questions here, and it seemed appropriate to clear them up. Do you disagree?Proabivouac09:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry; I was being tongue-in-cheek. There's not much actual "bashing" going on in the sub-commentary on this page, but it's almost all a bunch of "gnashing". I just don't see that it's constructive any longer at all. So, at this point, I tend toward "yes, I disagree" in that all that can be said meaningfully on both sides of that issue has already been said, and we're just really being noisy in here for a very dubiously productive return. <shrug> — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)›09:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Lynn, I made no false statements, nor did I aim to discredit anyone "and make [my] argument sound stronger" - if you read this page, you'll notice that I haven't weighed in yet (and may not.) "Professional relationship" is a pretty broad concept, the requirements of which running into one another a few times a year/appearing on a number of the same websites together in the course of business satisfies. It was a legitimate question.Proabivouac09:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with your question was that it was formed as a statement, you asserted that I had a professional relationship with her. The implication of course being that I was a meat puppet. If your intention truely was to inquire as to whether or not we had an outside relationship that might be influencing votes, then I apologize for taking the misunderstanding to the next level, but do try to understand how I made the mistake. The fact that I have seen her at conferences is really not special, I spent several years as a paid speaker at almost every information security conference in north america. As far as I can tell the only web page I can find that have the two of us both on it is memestreams.net. If thats the connection you were worried about then its funny, because thats a blog site, I also have a myspace page too, but I wouldn't say that I'm professionally associated with Tom either...Again, if you really were just trying to ask a question, then I apologize, but I hope you can understand how I reached my, ultimately incorrect, conclusion. --Michael Lynn09:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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?Proabivouac03:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. --Elonka03:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not that it matters much at this point, but for clarity sake, I found this RFA on my own (I contribute at RFA relatively regularly when I see candidates I like), and I never was in contact with Elonka during my years of playing her games. I have come into contact with her in an article or two during her time on this project, but considering my identity is fairly well known here I'm pretty sure that it can be assumed that I was not canvassed, nor am I biased in my support. Good faith would dictate that much of this would apply to most of the other supports. That satisfy you Proabivouac? ⇒SWATJesterDenny Crane.05:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support this capable candidate. This is not a popularity contest, nor is it the forum for ancient personal grudges. Have some decency and move on, people. Move on. RFerreira08:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support The Arbcom case happened in December of 2006. Many new admins sysoped registered after that. And she still can't be trusted?! I believe Elonka can be fully trusted with the tools 8 months later. However, I would agree with the opposed a few months ago. Now, I feel it's time to move on. --Maxim12:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Elonka has been nothing but helpful to me, helping me learn how to use wikipedia both philosophically and technically, even if I still have to put those lessons to full and effective use. Reading the evidence above as well leads me to believe she would be a good admin. Full Disclosure: I know Elonka personally, through our shared interest in boardgames and because we live near-ish each other. I knew of her previous RfA, and had talked with her about it, and although I learnt of this RfA from her, it came up in conversation and not because she contacted me with the express intent of canvassing. — Timothy(not Tim, dagnabbit!)20:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This editor surely has her share of controversy but many great assets to the project do. I'm convinced that Elonka holds the goals of Wikipedia firmly in mind with her actions (not her personal goals as some allege) and that she can be trusted with the mop. --Spike Wilbury♫talk00:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. No doubt she had a rocky start but she seems to have matured into a valuable editor. I have read all the concerns below and non really concern me enough to oppose. David D.(Talk)00:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Elonka is a good editor and valuable contributor and I think she'll make a good admin. My support is qualified as weak only because of some recent mis-steps regarding the issue of Mohammed depictions which I believe unnecessarily stirred the pot against consensus. Elonka did backtrak on the issue later to support consensus. I support her adminship and only offer a caution in the future on messy issues like Mohammed depictions. Dman72702:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I've been away from rfa for a while, but I'm having trouble seeing any real reason not to support --T-rex03:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Elonka has shown great capacity to grow and improve as an editor since the first RfA and the issues raised there. If this RfA does not succeed, I hope in the future the community will come to realize that we have a good candidate here. Jonathunder05:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SupportLike Matt57 and several others here, I participated in the recent depictions dust up, and found Elonka's involvement well-intended but ultimately unhelpful, and her mode of discussion detached and unresponsive. However, contra some of the comments in the opposes (presumably accompanied by experiences) I did not get the impression that she would have abused the tools. I can only urge her to take the time to appreciate the underlying principles involved in future disputes, and not reflexively grasp at the first (seemingly) easiest way out. Danny's comment below I take very seriously. There is undeniably the appearance of self-promotion, and it is appropriate that possible conflicts of interest remain under scrutiny for as long as she edits here. At the same time, she has a name and a reputation which accompanies her presence: that she wants her participation to reflect well upon her is as close as we can come to a guarantee against the worst abuses. Wikipedia needs more vested citizen-editors; the same holds true for administrators. If a vanity userpage and lingering (inevitably) COI concerns is the price we pay for their participation, we come out ahead, in my estimate. The problems of unaccountability, of anonymity, of immaturity, of life-inexperience and of plain incompetence are far worse; and we are all aware that we have these now. Elonka is brilliant, Elonka is accomplished, Elonka is accountable, Elonka is a serious person, and I have no reason to believe that she will abuse the tools.Proabivouac07:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've been mulling over this one for a while now, and I feel that this editor will make a fine administrator. Admin tools are not a power, but are exactly what the description says: a tool for improving Wikipedia. Even though Elonka has had some issues in the past, haven't we all? Her recent edits show that she has improved since her last RFA. I feel she is responsible enough to be given a chance at adminship. DarthGriz9807:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I have had some concerns about this user, but think she has improved and will be a good trusted administrator. --Bduke11:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. You have way more edits than me, and I think this rfa will be one of the most supported with well over 100. Thanks. ~AH1(TCU)15:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. WjBscribe21:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 Scott21:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(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 Scott21:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. DurovaCharge!23:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 Scott03:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Meier21:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Daniel03:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. DurovaCharge!00:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Durova, I'm not certain that this is the right place to engage this, but the "undue weight" argument, already tenuous, is plainly inapplicable in this situation: we are talking about a grand total of one image on Kaaba, which is a historic illustration of - yes - the Kaaba from 1315, by far the oldest and most notable image of this brick-and-mortar building on the article, or anywhere else that I've seen. It's if we had a color photograph of Muhammad riding the last living Tyrannosaurus Rex, and while the rest of us are gaping in awe at this uncanny photograph of the beast, a few editors are screaming about the wholly imagined impropriety of showing the fellow in the saddle. To indulge this line of unreason is, on a social level, perfectly understandable - someone is upset and one wants to make him happy, nothing wrong with that - but shows a thoughtless and unexamined neglect of the subject of the article, and of our informative mission. What this has to do with Elonka having or not having the tools, I'm not sure: I doubt she would have blocked anyone involved in the discussion. More that, as an editor and as a curator (which is what, at least in part, we are,) I'd like to think that my fellow curators would be positively ecstatic at having this historic image of this important building available to us. That she saw it only as a problem possibly shows political (as opposed to academic/scholarly) inclinations in her reasoning that may prove an asset in an administrator.Proabivouac11:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. DurovaCharge!02:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. DurovaCharge!03:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Rebecca02:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. DurovaCharge!02:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Rebecca02:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 [121][122], or perfectly excusable borderline cases [123][124]. 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 [125][126] 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)[reply]
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. Rebecca08:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Rebecca08:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. DurovaCharge!13:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. --Elonka22:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Rebecca02:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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: [127][128][129][130][131][132] 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.[133][134][135] --Elonka07:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. DurovaCharge!15:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Rebecca14:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also genuinely curious as to what this "issue with the Australian Wikiproject" is that Durova has raised, being a fairly active editor within it myself and not being aware of it. Orderinchaos09:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Rebecca, please understand that nobody's calling you a liar. But also understand, please, that such a serious accusation as adjudicating someone a pattern of problematic use of speedy deletion tags over the space of several months is the kind of allegation that usually requires some sort of demonstration via diff links (heck, I'd ask anyone making such a comment for it, even Jimbo). This is specially the case when such a continued behavior would have surely left some footprints behind (not particularly easy to document? Mistakenly tagging at such large scale?). Now, if we're talking about the tendencies towards deletion she showed some eight months ago, around November '06, and you find "that" a reason to be concerned and thus opposing this nomination, then by all means do so; it's perfectly legitimate, even if I and many disagree with that criteria. But in that case, let's also make clear that the pattern you comment on did indeed take place that long ago; and in case this nomination fails, let's clearly denote the fact that the issue was already an old one by the time we went through this process. Phaedriel - 19:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Replied to Orderinchaos at my user talk page. Rebecca, Phaedriel states it well. In good faith I don't think you're making any deliberate misrepresentation, yet you're quite mistaken in your speculations about my (supposed failure to) research. I was surprised you supposed such a thing in the first place, but to repeat it after specific assurances? I strongly request you refactor. A representative sampling of diffs would be adequate to demonstrate your point. I have a standing offer to you and to anybody to strikethrough my conomination if relevant evidence comes to light that I wasn't aware of before this RFA opened. It's very rare for a conominator to make such an offer. I'm perfectly serious about it: convince me. DurovaCharge!21:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. [136]. 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)[reply]
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[137]. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.[138] Hope that helps explain, --Elonka23:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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). WaltonOne11:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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!--Yannismarou16:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Orderinchaos18:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have refactored the comment above, as it's only been alledged at this point. Community opinion on WP:AN doesn't support the allegation, and as no formal checkuser case was filed by the user alledging they are sockpuppets of the user in question (allthough one was filed moments ago by a user seeking appropriate clarity on the matter), there is nothing presented to suggest this is anything beyond an allegation. Thewinchester(talk)04:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Er, you may notice that Danny provided absolutely no diffs or evidence to support his evaluation of the candidate. WaltonOne11:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Orderinchaos09:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. JRG05:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. TwentyYears10:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 ([139]), 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)[reply]
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." [140] 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. Sarah11:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. --Elonka17:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Sarah04:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 conductingallWikipediabusinessoffwiki. (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)[reply]
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♥Gold15:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've stricken my oppose here. Between Elonka coming around and making good-faith attempts at addressing concerns (maye she waited a bit too long for my tastes but she eventually has) and the tone of the opposition becoming a vindictive and uncivil mob scene, I simply don't want to be associated. I'm still not comfortable enough for a full-on support but her conduct here has been much improved since my last encounters with her. If she were to be promoted, I would even feel comfortable giving her my two cents regarding admin protocol, and I would not have said that a few months ago. The opposition has become so unruly, I'm almost rooting for Elonka! Someone in the Oppose camp should not be saying that so I'm out. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Deiztalk15:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose out of touch with concensus and process on deletion criteria. Can't trust Elonka to show necessary restraint with the tools. SchmuckyTheCat
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-Dett20:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. JodyByak, yak, yak02:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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|folks02:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. --Ozgod03:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Arrow74003:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. --John05:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Carlossuarez4605:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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*(whoistalkedits)06:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 [[141]], 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 [[142]] 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. --`/aksha07:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...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?DurovaCharge!07:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Orderinchaos07:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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. WjBscribe08:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 Scott08:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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? JehochmanTalk12:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Orderinchaos12:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Orderinchaos13:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. -- Merope13:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Krimpet13:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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,[169] and it seems ‘s still nurturing that vendetta till personal end goals are reached.[170][171][172][173] 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 helsing13:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. DurovaCharge!15:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 helsing16:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. DurovaCharge!17:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Gnangarra15:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. BeitOr19:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. EnsRedShirt02:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Adminship is not one-strike-you-are-out game. Otherwise, Wikipedia would have no admins at all. Perfect people do not exist, unfortunately. - Beit Or. Phaedriel - 01:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. GRBerry21:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 [174], Rouse Hill Town Centre 26 June 2007 [175] 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 [176], 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. Zivko8508:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Sandifer19:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.[177] I removed it.[178] Sandifer then took a perfectly appropriate action, submitting the article to AfD. The community consensus was "Keep."[179] 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. --Elonka20:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.Tesson02:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. — CharlotteWebb23:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. DanielT504:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 July2007; (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. - BanyanTree09:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.Tesson12:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 helsing13:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. JehochmanTalk15:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Van helsing, thanks, and you're right, that link wasn't helpful to the article. I have removed it.[180] If you (or anyone else) sees any links that are questionable, please feel free to remove them. --Elonka18:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Lectonar15:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
#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. Davewild18:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that I withdrew those questions, because after waiting for answers for so long, meanwhile doing my own background research on the candidate, I came to a vote decision; she did not refuse to answer them, but simply didn't within a time frame that could have made a difference. I also didn't appreciate being attacked for asking them by her supporters, but that's another matter that I've taken up elsewhere. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)›04:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the record: The questions were up for only about 24 hours.[181][182] I apologize for not being able to get to them during that time period, but I was busy with off-wiki real-life issues -- two of my customers got married on Saturday, at our company convention SimuCon, and my time online was greatly curtailed.[183] (oops, there I go adding a URL to my company website again...) The top layer of their wedding cake is actually in my freezer as we speak -- They had a logistics problem, so I promised to watch it for them while they're on honeymoon in Jamaica. :) But getting back to Wikipedia... When I got back online, the questions were already withdrawn. I've done my best to answer all the other active ones since then though, and I apologize for my absence. --Elonka08:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keen. I've been trying to make the point that the withdrawal of the questions isn't punitive, but more a matter of their relevance expiring and mea being ganged up on by people I've been dealing with elsewhere. I didn't like the fact that the oppose above seemed to be based on lack of answers to my questions. The questions simply weren't relevant to me any more, and being rather "researchy" I wouldn't want you to spend the time to answer them for no reason. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)›09:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. And for what it's worth, I'm sorry if anyone here feels that they've been harassed by those who support me. In most cases my supporters were acting in good faith, and I thank them for their efforts. In a few cases I think there may have been overzealousness involved. My guess is that because I was absent for 24 hours, some felt it necessary to speak on my behalf. I definitely did not ask them to do this, but I do apologize to anyone who felt hurt by it. --Elonka19:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 Olsen20:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. NeoFreak23:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per all above. Many solid reasons have been discussed on both sides, but I'm just not sure I feel comfortable with this user becoming an admin at this time, especially because of how much controversy this RFA has stirred up. It's hard to see how the effect on the project would be a net positive, with so many people up in arms about it, and that's enough to push me from neutral to oppose. Charlie-talk to me-what I've done04:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I considered my response to this RfA for quite a while. I respect Elonka as an editor and I know she does lots of good work. On the other hand, I still do not have confidence in her ability to put policy above her personal opinions when making administrative decisions and to act with the neutrality necessary to intervene in disputes. Dekimasuよ!05:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Poindexter Propellerhead, we have seen several Oppose comments based on old events. I don't see how the passage of time would change those minds. I am concerned that we risk setting bad precedents here: (1) Editors with long histories are placed at a disadvantage because old mistakes aren't forgiven, and (2) Editors who take a principled stand on an issue that they believe in are punished later by those who disagreed with them. RFA should not be a popularity contest, nor an ideological test. Vote your minds, but consider how things stand today, and remember that honorable people may sometimes disagree. JehochmanTalk06:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I think we should get away from any idea that someone deserves admin if they've been in a community for a period of time, and from any idea that adminship in itself is a status symbol (and from that, that RfA is a popularity contest). Unfortunately those misconceptions do prevail, but the fact is that admin is a necessary function on the project, and needs to be seen as independent and neutral by the community as a whole. If it is not, the entire project is degraded. There is nothing stopping someone being a great editor with long service, without the need for admin tools which have the potential to be used incorrectly or in a way that erodes the community's confidence. Orderinchaos07:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Further, I don't see any actual evidence that editors with longer histories are disadvantaged; quite the opposite really – "It's about time" and "I thought you already were an admin!" are very common "support" comments around here. Secondly, taking a principled stand on an issue you believe in may in fact be quite problematic in the RfA context, if that stand or that issue conflict with what is best for the project in an administrator (such as stronger-than-normal deletionism with regard to WP:CSD, thwart-Wikinature move blocking, etc. "Not good admin material" and "dishonorable" are not equivalent phrases, and to suggest that they are in a roundabout way is hyperbolic in the extreme. Thirdly, how can Jehochman assume that the voters here are not considering things as they stand today? I see overwhelming evidence that they are. One of the more frequent "oppose" rationales in this RfA can be summarized as "a lot of these problems are technically 'old news', but the evidence suggests that Elonka's attitude/behavior hasn't changed"; that's direct evidence of precisely such consideration. Finally: These disagreeable and agumentative challenges to every other "oppose" vote are getting rather tiresome, and desperate-looking. We all know what the pro position is, in gory detail, and this is simply getting repetitive. Please just let people have their say and move on. I'm fairly certain that many of the oppose votes have arisen directly because Elonka's supporters have insisted on turning this into a 50-point cantankerous debate instead of a straightforward RfA. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)›07:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some of what you say makes sense, but I think you've mis-understood my remarks and intentions. You're welcome to discuss further on my talk page. "Hyperbolic in the extreme" is funny in a self-referential way. :-) JehochmanTalk08:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jeho, its possible to be an old editor but have an excellent record like this user who I supported. Users like Calliopejen1 dont need others to come to their side on an RfA, neither do they even ask how they could improve themselves. --Matt57(talk•contribs)11:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Elonka is a (net) good editor, who is valuable for the project. I think, however, that Elonka's best contribution to the project at this time can be made by continuing as an editor. In this way Elonka will be free to continue editing in the manner to which she has become accustomed. AKAF07:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gentle and polite oppose. Elonka is clearly a great asset to Wiki, and there is much about her work here, and her particular skills that I can see would be very useful with the extra tools and responsibilities of adminship - especially in terms of unravelling sockpuppets. However, the many concerns that have been raised and evidence put forward give pause for thought. I wouldn't expect any individual to be free of fault, and I accept that Admins will make mistakes - we can hope for perfection, but we live in a real world - so I wouldn't hold moments of human fraility against anyone. However, the past stubborness she has displayed shows a believe in her judgements which is not born out by the evidence of those judgements being overturned. She appears to believe she is right even when it is pointed out to her she is wrong, and evidence has been presented which shows she continues to hold judgements which are then overturned as not consensual. There is that whiff of doubt about her which suggests that it may be better to play safe. SilkTork15:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I hope you don't mind my asking, and you're welcome to ignore my question, but I'm genuinely curious... You said that I'm stubborn about past judgments which have been overturned... To my knowledge, I have gone back and scrutinized my history to take a hard look at anywhere that my judgment was different from community consensus, and I have made amends wherever I could. Are you saying that I missed something, and if so, could you please point it out? I definitely want to listen closely to any objections that are raised so that I can address them, but sometimes I need things to be spelled out a bit more clearly. In many cases in the above opposes, there are general comments, but without specific diffs or even references to specific situations! Or in other words, I want to improve, and I feel that I have improved, but if there are areas that I have missed, please, do point them out, otherwise I can't improve them if I don't know about them! Thanks, Elonka19:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deeply Regretful Oppose Elonka is an excellent editor; but I cannot support Elonka's arguments on the Kaaba matter. She has been supported, apparently for this, by some of our most disruptive editors; this answers that support. If Elonka's arguments on the matter misrepresent her opinion, I should be glad to hear it; but I believe that we have a moral duty to relay consensus in the most effective manner. There are those who dislike this, as there were those who dislike the Encyclopedie, but that is their choice, not ours. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson22:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PMAnderson, you are of course welcome to oppose my adminship, but I'm hoping that there may just be a miscommunication here? My stand on the images at the Kaaba article is, and has been for days now, that I support consensus, and that the images should stay.[184] But I also have to ask, even if we disagreed about the images, as intelligent and reasonable people might, does this make you feel that there is a risk that I would abuse administrator tools? Because I can assure you, I have no intention of this. The primary reason that I want tools, is so that I can see deleted edits, and be able to better participate at WP:DRV. I understand that the tools come as part of a package: View, protect, delete, etc., and I am extremely willing to help out with administrative tasks -- but I'm not asking for tools to do anything like force through my opinion on such contentious issues as those related to Islam -- those are content issues, which should be resolved by consensus, not by an administrator. If I've done anything else to make you feel that I would ever abuse admin tools, could you please tell me what it might be, so that I can set your mind at rest? My understanding is that the purpose of this RfA is not for people to decide whether or not I would agree with them on content issues, but so that the community can decide whether or not there would be any risk that I would cause a danger to Wikipedia if I had access to admin tools. In most cases, RfAs come up about people that aren't known very well to the community -- they are anonymous accounts that may have only been observed by a few editors, so the RfA is a chance to dig into the contribs and really look at what they've done. In my case though, I'd like to think that I'm a well-known quantity. My actions on-wiki are of course open to view, and my actions off-wiki equally so. I'd like to think that I have a reputation as an honest, open, and trustworthy person -- it surprises me that anyone would think otherwise. But I guess everyone's entitled to their opinion! For what it's worth though, I give my word: I have no intention of abusing admin tools. The net effect of my having tools would be a positive one for Wikipedia, not negative. --Elonka23:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You said the net effect of you having the admin tools will be positive. That means say, +30 positive effects and -10 negative effects = +20 net (positive). Do you think there's going to be some negative effects (the -10) of you having the admin tools? You really didnt mean that, right? --Matt57(talk•contribs)00:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are admins not allowed to make mistakes? I'm not talking about colossal mistakes like unilaterally deleting a bunch of things for no reason, but I think a poor AFD closure here and a failure to block there are the sort of negative effects that we live with around here. Philwelch00:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good heavens man, that's a tall order! Frankly, I'd be concerned about the effectiveness (and self-honesty) of a proto-administrator who pledged that they would never make a mistake. Mackensen(talk)00:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Matt, you're being unreasonnable. "Net effect" has been used time and again in RfA discussions as a concise mean of expressing the following more subtle thing: "admins are not perfect and we don't expect them to be because if we keep on waiting for perfect admins we'll never have any admins. Nevertheless, we are looking for admins which are reasonably close to perfection and which are willing to learn from their missteps. Avery admin has, over the course of their career, taken actions which, when carefully considered, are detrimental to the project. Nevertheless, their admin actions as a whole have had a clear positive impact." Now of course, that's a little bulky. So we say "net effect is positive". Pascal.Tesson00:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you guys are saying. But if an employee joined a company and said "the net effects of me being employed are going to be positive", thats not a really strong statement. It wont make a good impression on the boss if you're saying right from the start "Ok yea I'll be making mistakes but I think overall my effect will be positive". So I wondered if she knew what mistakes she was going to make or if she was saying it in the way you meant, which is ok. Now I have a new question for Elonka, will add it now. --Matt57(talk•contribs)01:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One thing that most people here agree on, is that there aren't enough admins at Wikipedia. We have backlogs all over the place, and WP:ANI is a constantly-scrolling hubbub of messages, where the typical poster is lucky if they can get 2 or 3 uninvolved admins to take a careful look at a situation. Wikipedia needs more administrators. I am someone who already has admin experience, in a variety of other venues around the internet. I've managed large online communities for over 15 years now. Now, I do realize that one of my mistakes at Wikipedia, was that when I arrived, I had the mindset of "seasoned administrator" instead of "clueless newbie." When I saw a dispute going on, I wasn't afraid to roll up my sleeves and wade in, as I've done countless times before in other communities, where I'm already at a bureaucrat-like level (or higher). But by being over-eager here in the Wikipedia culture, and by being not that familiar with Wikipedia-specific guidelines at the time, I made some mistakes. Big mistakes, considering how many differences that there are between Wikipedia's culture, and others where I have participated. I apologize for my mistakes. But I promise, that every time I make a mistake, I do my best to learn from it. And I also promise that I really like it here, and actively want to be a good member of the community. If the community handles some things differently than I think that they should be handled, well, okay, I have made the decision that I'm not here to impose my own view, I'm here to support the rules that this community sets for itself. If I disagree with those rules, I may speak up, I may try to change them, but while they're active and supported by consensus, so too will I enforce them. Bottom line though: Wikipedia needs more administrators. I'm here, I'm volunteering to help. I'm trustworthy. You have jobs that need doing, let me at 'em. Put me to work. :) --Elonka01:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But I suppose that if Elonka said "I'll be a good admin" you'd say she's got an overbloated ego. As I was pointing out, the phrase "net effect" is an RfA cliché and not something to blow out of proportions. Note also that Elonka is not interviewing for a job and in fact she's a volunteer requesting certain additional tools. The very purpose of RfA is to answer the question: "will granting the candidate sysop access have an overall positive or an overall negative effect on the project?" If the net impact is positive, we promote. That's simple enough. Now it's still a complex question because different people see candidates in different lights but more importantly because they don't quite put the same things in the balance. Pascal.Tesson01:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I have a great respect for Elonka. She has made several contributions for Wikipedia. However, consensus is very important. I am a new Wikipedian. I make mistakes. If someone says anything wrong about me because of my mistake, I should try to correct that mistake. I shouldn't try to attack that person. If she becames an administrator, she may block people because of personal reasons. You should respect the views of those who disagree with you. RS200708:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose With some trepidation, I must voice must my opposition. The substantial number of concerns and links above, and relating to this page, only reaffirm my view that the valued editor would make make a poor admin. The lack of trust in the community has been disruptive enough, will that improve if the canditate is succesful? I almost never enter into RfAs, I feel I must this time. Do I declare that I'm Australian to have a say here? Comments by others should be retracted if not, perhaps that is a formal request to go on the talk page. Fred ☻ 10:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - per many above in oppose, many valid issues have been raised, which cause concern in regards to use of admin tools.--Bryson13:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Had supported, then decided not to, now I've swung the other way. The appeal to emotion here is overwhelming, but I find it completely uncompelling. If you're here to try to promote your friends, myspace is down the hall. If you're here to promote candidates based on suitability for the position, welcome to Wikipedia. Friday(talk)15:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - adminship is not a big deal, right? and the vehemency with which both camps are trying to present their point of view suggests the contrary; this is not a presidential election. Perhaps it's not yet time for this RfA to pass. Someone cleverly pointed out that trust is the issue here; Time and dilligence will gain the candidate more trust and a better chance at adminship. Roadmr (t|c) 15:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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:
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!
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. Philwelch19:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. DurovaCharge!19:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Deiztalk07:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are referring to a notability tag placed in November 2006? [185] 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:BLPallows 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)[reply]
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. Deiztalk16:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Deiztalk01:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. -- llywrch22:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. :) --Elonka18:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. --JayHenry18:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. --Elonka18:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. :) --Elonka18:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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! :) --Elonka21:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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! --Tom15:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. //Halibutt00:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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? --Elonka02:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. //Halibutt06:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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). Orderinchaos22:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. //Halibutt18:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Switching to neutral based on the repsonses to my oppose above addressing the concern I raised. Still have serious doubts but will stay neutral based on good response to my over reaction to the issue raised above which was what swung me to oppose. Davewild
Thank you very much for keeping an open mind. :) If you have any other questions, or if there are any other issues that I can address, please feel free to ask. --Elonka05:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.
Coren (talk·contribs) - I'd like to offer myself for the mop once more. I withdrew my previous request when it became apparent that the consensus was that I needed more experience and to correct a few failings, which I think I have.
My biggest flaw was, and probably still is, that I can sometimes be a bit too short with other editors. I think I can fairly say I've gotten pretty good at keeping my cool, and while I don't think I've ever been uncivil, I'm now much better at not biting and presuming intent. I'm no more perfect than anyone else, but I think my record shows I've gotten much better.
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: My strong point and focus will always be quality control; I'll keep doing new page patrol and XfD, of course, and lend a hand wherever a backlog beckons. I've gotten some practice (non-admin) closing AfDs, and I've been keeping a close eye on the various noticeboards to get a good feel on how the rules are applied in practice and what the community feels are the "right" way to handle various incidents.
I have a particular dislikehatred of spam, and will always remain vigilant to keep spammers away from the 'pedia and sweep up the... droppings... they leave behind.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Strangely enough, my deletion nominations. While there is the obvious directly positive effect of keeping some of the spam and vandalism off, it often happens that a well placed prod or speedy spurs editing a sub-par article into a good encyclopedia page. Unlike many, I don't see deletions as an adversarial process, but as a collaborative one. I'm always willing to give a good faith editor a hand into fixing up an article to make a csd or prod I placed moot; and I've likewise never hesitated to change my !vote on an XfD as the article improves— even if it's one I nominated.
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've actually never gotten into an editing dispute that wasn't solved with a quick exchange of short notes. What conflicts I've gotten into were usually initiated by deletion nominations. I used to not realize how personally some editors could take a prod or speedy tag, and would react to angered reactions with defensiveness. Now, if another editor comes out aggressively, I will point him or her towards the relevant guidelines and policies and simply walk (click?) away.
Probably the best example I can think of is how I handled the (non-)deletion of Brahim Yadel. While the original editor quickly became extremely aggressive, I've successfully managed to steer the dispute back into civility, and helped him find the right things to include in the article to stave off deletion. In the end, the article became sourced enough, and the keep arguments strong enough, that it survived the AfD and came out stronger than when it got in.
4. Obligatory "How do you interpret WP:IAR?" question.
A: I've probably one of the most restricted interpretations of WP:IAR: I read it as "Ignore the letter of the rules when they prevent applying the spirit of the rules." I don't think policy and guidelines arrived by long (and sometimes arduous) discussion to consensus should be ignored lightly. I suppose it's possible to find an example where actually ignoring a rule really helped make a better encyclopedia, but I think that would normally be extraordinarily rare.
I tend to be instantly suspicious of invocations of IAR. If a rule should be ignored because it prevents doing the Right Thing in a particular case, then the right thing might be to revisit the rule itself— after all, consensus changes with time and what may have been seen as anathema two years ago might be viewed differently today.
I will listen to someone using IAR in a discussion, but the onus will lie entirely on him or her to demonstrate that by "IAR" they don't simply mean "Yeah, but my article is different/nicer/an exception".
5. Selecting one item listed at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion that arguably does not belong there, explain (citing WP:CSD and/or WP:DP in detail) why it should not be speedily deleted. (If all of them appear to be appropriate candidates, say so and I'll think of replacement test of admin judgement.) Your personal, subjective opinion of the value of the item (how well written it is, the importance of the topic beyond satisfying WP:CSD's notability requirements, and so forth) should not be a factor.
Hm. That ended up harder than it seemed. Most of the candidates I saw seemed spot on, but DJ-Kicks stood out. It describes a fairly large collection of CDs featuring a number of notable artists. It has a fairly large history with numerous contributors, none of which are in obvious conflict of interest. It's a little advertise-y, but the style tag covers that adequately. G11 requires not only that the article be blatantspam, but that it would need to be "fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic", which doesn't seem to be the case. I expect that article would even survive an AfD; the speedy isn't appropriate (and was de-tagged by another editor once before I did).
I concur; the article could easily be fixed with the style cleanup and a few refs demonstrating notable critical response in the music press, etc. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)›01:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. 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. As above, keep your personal opinion of the subjective value of the item out of the equation, as this is a demonstration of administrative not editorial judgement.
As of today, there are plenty of inverted cases available, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gellert Grindelwald (the fact that the last book of the Harry Potter series has just been published has created a rash of articles, and the predictable flood of AfD nominations). Those articles are textbook examples of vast defenses almost entirely based on WP:USEFUL, WP:ILIKEIT and WP:WAX, an "keep"s tend to ignore the legitimate concerns about WP:IINFO, WP:PLOT or even WP:OR which, as one of the pillars, is critical.
At this moment, I'm failing to find an article with a majority of unfounded deletes, but I'll keep looking back in time and update this later. I'm not very surprised— it's much more likely for readers/editors of an article to be fans/supportive of the topic than for "random" editors passing by AfD, and people with a strong dislike for the topic are less likely to stumble on the AfD template on the article and follow it to the discussion.
I do remember AfDs that ended in delete that I tought shouldn't have because the topic was distateful to a large number of editors, or which were so contentious that the "discussion" quickly devolved to a barrage of poor deletes, but none that I can clearly see in the recent past. Those are always touchy and I don't envy the closing admins.
(note: there actually is a recent example I can think of, but I tought it not appropriate to bring up here since (a) I was involved in the discussion and (b) it did go trhough a DrV).
Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Coren before commenting.
Discussion
Support
Moral support for swimming in the shark pool. [186] But you should trust that seasoned editors can handle a lion pit [187] and some more mainspace edits would't harm. --Tikiwont14:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - good editor, seems experienced enough IMO. The diffs provided by Pedro don't particularly worry me; Coren was right to apologise for accidentally templating an established user, but I understand why he tagged the article in its original form for A7. And the second diff - admonishing a newbie not to sign articles - looks like a valid comment, and doesn't seem particularly uncivil to me. Further, I don't agree with the premise that extensive article-writing is needed for adminship; not everyone has the expertise or inclination to contribute masses of new content, and maintenance work is just as valuable for the encyclopedia. (We've had this discussion enough times at WT:RFA, so I won't go into it further). WaltonOne15:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The diffs provided in opposition below don't bother me either, there's nothing in there to indicate Coren is untrustworthy or doesn't know policy. I can also find nothing to suggest he hasn't improved since the prior nomination. Contributions, particularly to the mainspace, may be thin by some standards but is sufficient for determining the candidate's capabilities in my book. ɑʀкʏɑɴ15:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I don't understand the oppositions. The differences provided aren't that big of a deal IMO and this user has a good number of edits as well as experience. Wikidudeman(talk)16:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak actual / strong moral support, changed from neutral as I just couldn't let Pedro's insufficient rationale go un-cancelled-out. Although I do somewhat agree with Chrislk02 and Husond, I do not see any serious deal-breakers. —AldeBaer 16:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I think I'm beginning to see a recurring theme here. :-) I'll put my money where my mouth is right now and go check the stubs to see if there are a few I can meaningfully flesh out. If nothing else, this RfA will have done more than waste a few electrons. — Coren(talk)17:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I simply refuse to let RfAs fail because of lack of mainspace work. OK, I can't literally refuse, but the best I can do is support them. GiggyUCP01:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Despite not being the most active editor in the world, demonstrates clear understanding of deletion policy (see my two questions), and otherwise seems to know what's expected and how to go about it, judging from the other answers and replies. I'm not concerned much by the allegations of hastiness - that is a trait that other admins will rein in quickly enough if it arises, and the response to the WP:IAR question suggests that this editor well-respects WP:PROCESS. PS: Not all editors are by nature exopedians, and WP needs plenty of metapedians for what Coren called "quality control", something more and more important as more and more spammers, COI-pushing self-aggrandizers, vandals, NFT-violating kids, etc., show up every single day the more popular WP gets. PPS: Recent edit counts of 333 to 1170 per month are evidentiary of a good (though not obsessive ;-) activity level, being around and at least occasionally participating since 1993 2003 demonstrates long-term viability, and the stats "number of unique pages 2027 / total 3016" are a ratio demonstrative of policing and cleanup work, which are needed just as much as article creation. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)›02:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I feel you are getting closer to being ready, however feel you need a little bit more mainspace experience and main talk space. (I.E., collaborative work on an article). While you have been a registered editor for quite a while, the majority of your edits have been in the past few months with a majority being in the user talk space. You have contributed to the wp and wpt space but i think a little more experience in those areas could not hurt as well. Overall, I would give it another month or 2 and i feel you would be ready. Feel free to seek me out for an editor review when the time comes and you feel ready. If I feel you are ready I may be willing to nominate you. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider)14:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, again, sorry. You've been improving, that is for certain. But I'm not convinced that you're ready to become an administrator mostly because you still have a rather low participation in the mainspace. Misplacing this RfA on this page also didn't look good. Keep up the good work and try again in a few months please.--Húsönd14:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, guess who... :-) Anyway, I hope that you don't feel discouraged if this RfA fails. You just need to improve a little bit more (IMO) and I'm sure that a new RfA in a few months will be most successful. Just keep striding and don't forget the mainspace.--Húsönd14:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I intend to let this one go all the way through, even if only to collect criticism for review. I think I'm ready, but if there is a consensus that I'm not it's important that I know why so I can address it. I don't think I'll ever rank very high in mainspace edits, mind you— the topics where I hold enough knowledge to feel comfortable editing are also the ones with the better coverage already so I rarely feel I can contribute that much... and since english isn't my native language, copy editing is iffy (I fear introducing errors rather than fix them).
Oppose Really sorry. You are doing some great work, reports to WP:AIV, discussion work and vandal reverting. However you are just too hasty at times. Husond didn't mention it but here where you tagged an article of his for speedy and then when you found out he was a seasoned and experienced editor backed down. Whether the account is a year or a day old makes no difference - you should have checked further before tagging. Again here you tagged an article that although short was clearly referenced and asserted notability so I can't see why Speedy Deletion applied. Finally this is a touch too bitey and particularly when you note the comment directly above it, applied at the same time. Like I say, a lot of your work is excellent, so don't be discouraged at all, but I just personally can't support giving you some extra buttons at the moment, particularly the delete one. Best wishes. Pedro | Chat 14:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I didn't back down. [189]. I did apologise for leaving a template on a seasoned editor's talk page rather than a short personal note. I doubt Hussond needed to be told how to place a hangon after all. :-) But I stood by my A7 because, as it was, the article made no claim to notability. — Coren(talk)14:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per you own diff, you stated "But you are a regular, so I think I can trust you to work on the article and not just abandon it in this state." So I can only read it that you will apply speedy to newbies, but not seasoned editors. Sorry, that's just my interpretation but it still demonstrates you were too hasty, which is my point of concern. Also can you please put a # in front of indented comments as it blows out the numbering otherwise. Ta!Pedro | Chat 14:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also looked at the PTDI example you gave and, frankly, I don't understand it. The revision I tagged had no assertion of notability that I can see, and did read like a simple ad for a driving school (which is why I tagged it G11). Can you clarify why you chose that example? — Coren(talk)14:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pedro, I honestly do not see much validity in your rationale. Tagging that article was somewhat justifiable, and so was apologising to Husond. Most of all, I do not see anything bitey in this comment at all. Personally, I regard a flawed reasoning as even worse than a weak reasoning like Kurt Weber's running gag. —AldeBaer 16:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry to do this, but I will expand my reasoning. I believe the bitey comment was just that. The accused editor just left his signature on an article not a talk page. Even mentioning WP:OWN is out of line - there was no way it implied that at all - it's just a common mistake. Look at the diff and the previous editors comment that was far more faithful. If you were a newbie how would you feel for making that slip up? It's a small matter. The following (all this month) are not so small. [190] placed the wrong tag and then sorted it anyway - article still stands. [191] spam tag was wrong - very contested and recommended to AFD by third party - article still stands. [192] candidate agreed he was wrong to tag - article still stands. [193] edited an article he wanted speedy to fix the refs! Article still stands. [194] per above - candidate said he would leave article alone as it was by an established editor (which should make no difference) Article still stands. [195] article tagged twice by candidate and then edited it to add a stub tag - Article still stands. In one month the candidate has made six poor errors requesting a speedy delete (although granted many correct calls as well). I cannot support giving the delete button to someone with that record at this time. As above, the work is great - the candidate is just too hasty to be trusted at this time. Pedro | Chat 19:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, now I'm confused. [196]was a copyvio. The copied text was removed along with the CSD (since, obviously, it wasn't a copyvio anymore!) In fact, all of the diffs you provide are obviously correct when placed then removed once the problems with the articles have been fixed (sometimes by myself). This is a Good Thing! (Well, [197] is a bit more borderline. I didn't fight the removal of the CSD or bring it to AfD since I supposed that some people might find that person notable enough). — Coren(talk)20:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[198] again, where you admit you tagged wrongly. I know you have commented that CSD is just a candidate and not a finality (per above). The point is simple. You tagged six articles this month alone incorrectly - which is about four and a half too many. As an admin you would have a delete button and I see nothing that mitigates that you would not have used it in my examples above - unilaterally and to the distress of the article creators. Coren as above I respect the hard work you are doing, your conversations and your anti-vandal work. I just do not trust you with the delete button at this time You are just too hasty IMHO. I'm sorry, but the support is also mounting so should you get the buttons just use them wisely, and with consideration. Best. Pedro | Chat 20:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say I was wrong, I said the article was not CSDable anymore. Because it has been fixed. But yes, I understand why you might feel I'm a bit fast on the deletion— this at least needs not worry you. I'm a strong proponent of deleting only tagged articles (tagged by someone else) even for admins (and even went so far as to propose this as a guideline some time ago). You need not fear me going on deletion rampages. I do take this seriously, and I hope you'll be able to see this for yourself if I get the mop. Let's make sure this doesn't devolve from discussion to argument and leave it at "agree to disagree". Okay? — Coren(talk)20:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pedro, what would you do if you saw an IP or new account leave a sig on an article page? Would you just remove it, and not politely inform them (as Coren did) that articles are not to be signed? WP:SIG btw says the following about signatures on articles: "Edits to articles should not be signed, as signatures on Wikipedia are not intended to indicate ownership or authorship of any Wikipedia article." Out of line? -- You say it's a small matter, but you include it in your rationale nevertheless. —AldeBaer 20:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
AldeBaer I would do this [199] as opposed to this [200]. It was bitey and failed to assume the faith that the editor had just followed instructions to sign things wihtout understanding where to sign. The candidate implied that the editor did it out of a sense of ownership. Pedro | Chat 20:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, if that's what you're reading into it. I'd say Coren tried to explain why we do not use sigs on articles, which is far better than just saying "articles should not be signed!" —AldeBaer 23:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Double edit-conflict Oppose Too little activity with this account; the obvious errors are pointed out above, so work on eliminating those and participating more in the main space as well as vandal fighting. (aeropagitica)14:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please ignore the above oppose, this user has a habit of repeatedly opposing self noms because they are self noms, he doesn't even take the time to review users so please ignore this. — Rlest (formerly Qst) 16:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not in favor of tagging every self-nom as an oppose, but do you have evidence that this user does not review the nominated users? Darkspots17:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Prima facie" expresses just that, if I understand it correctly: It's not worth bothering to review a candidate if he or she self-nominated. —AldeBaer 17:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Ah, yes, I see. Thanks for the answer. In that case, I would add my agreement that, when it is easily possible to find out more about users, opposing them on this ground alone seems unfair. One should do at least the minimum of research or not participate in RfAs. Darkspots18:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. As Chris points out, you may have been around a long time, but you've only been active for a few months. I'd personally like to see some sustained activity, and perhaps a little expansion of your activities in the directions mentioned by Chris. Don't be discouraged, though, as you certainly have the makings of a good administrator. Carom22:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Pedro. Evidence of questionable speedy tagging suggests that more time actively editing is needed. Xoloz14:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per much of above. I would also like to see sustained activity, additional mainspace edits, and additional experience outside of AfD and RfA. Lara♥Love18:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose - You seem to be getting to know wiki policy more, but your edit count is still low. Come back in a few months, and I will support. Politics rule19:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Concerns raised particularly by Pedro make me reluctant to trust with the delete button at this time. With more active editing experience am sure this concern can be addressed. Davewild18:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, of course they are. I always try to warn users when I CSD an article; and that edit (the CSD) goes away with the article; so that all that is left is the warning! That pattern is exactly what you'd expect and demand of someone who is doing new page patrol. — Coren(talk)19:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't expect and demand specific patterns, nor share the calculated desire to promote more "cookie cutter" admins. What I do expect is for something to be left over after the multitude of ineffectual boilerplate warnings is disregarded. You can say "this article might not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, using TW!!" because it isn't what you'd expand and demand of a new article, but if you look back at them you'll see that many of them are doing rather well [202], and others are decent stubs [203] even despite your repetitive edit-warring and button-mashing. —freak(talk)20:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Makes comments on medical issues that are outright wrong (eg. saying that the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) "exists in order to define "normal functioning" from a behavioral perspective"). Idiotic comment. Also has an aggressive manner. Skopp(Talk)23:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Voting in an RfA is not a tool to punish users who are on the opposite side from you in a content dispute. You've been around here long enough that you should know better. If you actually have something to say about his conduct, that's fine, but this doesn't appear to be the case. Zetawoof(ζ)00:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
(Changed to support) There are enough moral supports, and enough "moral opposes". Chrislk02 and Husond said it best: Get some more experience, esp. in the main space, and try again in about 2 months (in case this doesn't succeed). Good luck. —AldeBaer 16:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Neutral I think this is an excellent editor and I don't think that mainspace edits are what make an administrator. Still, a lot of issues brought up by the opposers suggest to me a little bit too much inexperience still. Trusilver16:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral (with encouragement) I came across Coren only last week, and noted his contribs page for potential RfA consideration, if further review did not reveal gaps or shortcomings. I still feel this is at some time likely to be the case, but the experience issue isn't quite there for me either. This RfA also suggests that communal feeling is not yet sufficiently strong, and RfA is to a large extent, a consensus by the community on its "comfort level". At this point the communal voice is only around 50 - 55% on a not-insignificant ~ 50 responses. Evidently the track record is not yet quite reassuring enough. That said, on the plus side, most "oppose" views are about things that time and experience will surely cure.
As a constructive suggestion, I'd ideally like to see maybe 3 or so more months involvement (April is quite recent to have begun serious editing), including broadening of experience at different aspects of the admin's role, in project space, RFC, 3O, DR, or other areas where policy based editing must be evidenced, and ideally, some articles which have more than "just a few edits on each", showing involved editorial work on specific articles or projects. These matter in my view for RfA, since users will expect administrators to make good editorial suggestions and clearly applied policy-based judgements related to many varied circumstances; a sense of limits and boundaries, and skill, all develop with breadth of experience. FT2(Talk | email)01:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Requests for bureaucratship (RfB) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become bureaucrats. Bureaucrats can make other users administrators or bureaucrats, based on community decisions reached here, and remove administrator rights in limited circumstances. They can also grant or remove bot status on an account.
The process for bureaucrats is similar to that for adminship above; however the expectation for promotion to bureaucratship is significantly higher than for admin, requiring a clearer consensus. In general, the threshold for consensus is somewhere around 85%. Bureaucrats are expected to determine consensus in difficult cases and be ready to explain their decisions.
Create a new RfB page as you would for an RfA, and insert
{{subst:RfB|User=Username|Description=Your description of the candidate. ~~~~}}
At minimum, study what is expected of a bureaucrat by reading discussions at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship including the recent archives, before seeking this position.
While canvassing for support is often viewed negatively by the community, some users find it helpful to place the neutrally worded {{RfX-notice|b}} on their userpages – this is generally not seen as canvassing. Like requests for adminship, requests for bureaucratship are advertised on the watchlist and on Template:Centralized discussion.
Please add new requests at the top of the section immediately below this line.
A summary of rejected proposals for de-adminship processes, as well as a list of past cases of de-adminship, may be found at Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship
^Historically, there has not been the same obligation on supporters to explain their reasons for supporting (assumed to be "per nom" or a confirmation that the candidate is regarded as fully qualified) as there has been on opposers.
Support Eddie knows what this project is all about and knows how to facilitate it. Will make a good sysop therefore. —« ANIMUM » 18:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
