Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Elonka[edit]

Final (86/47/18) Ended Tue, 24 Oct 2006 19:42:40 UTC

Elonka (talk · contribs) – Elonka Dunin joined Wikipedia on September 16, 2005 and has since then blessed the project with her outstanding contributions across several different areas. Aside from sharing her expertise in her valuable contributions to several articles such as SS Kronprinz Wilhelm, Raphael Kalinowski, Rennes-le-Château and Dan Brown, she also boasts an outstanding track record. She exerts patience and follows Wikipolicy to the letter.

She has over sixteen years of experience as a professional online community manager at http://www.play.net and already has administrator access on other MediaWiki projects: http://www.igda.org/wiki and http://wiki.elonka.com.

She has over 16,000 edits [1] and also includes extremely informative edit summaries for each of them [2]. She has created over 150 articles [3] and has contributed to two featured articles (Lost (TV series) and Marian Rejewski). I believe that she would make a fantastic administrator! SergeantBolt (t,c) 19:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I humbly accept, and if approved, look forward to further helping out with the Wikipedia project. --Elonka 20:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I find that I get the most satisfaction out of dealing with the administrative behind-the-scenes tasks, so I would probably be spending more time there than vandal-fighting. I have a great deal of familiarity with WP:CFD and WP:RM, and would like to help in clearing out those backlogs.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I have created or substantially expanded over 150 articles on Wikipedia, with most of my energy being in the English and Simple English versions, though I have used my language skills to participate in several others. Articles that I am most proud of include SS Kronprinz Wilhelm, Alfred Niezychowski, Saint Raphael Kalinowski, Eric Bloom, Dan Brown, Cesar Millan, Rennes-le-Chateau, Francis X. Cretzmeyer, Henry Lincoln, Henryk Leon Strasburger, August Czartoryski, and Wilmer & the Dukes. I've also done quite a bit of work on the Knights Templar articles, though I definitely can't take full credit for those. And I have helped with many articles about the Lost television series, including rewriting Lost (season 1) and Lost (season 2) after the conclusion of a successful (unanimous agreement) mediation. Lost (TV series) was a main page featured article on October 3, 2006.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: There are two incidents in particular that come to mind. My most stressful time by far was in January 2006: Another user, DreamGuy (talk · contribs · block log), evidently under the assumption that I was a sockpuppet, starting hurling personal attacks my way. When I tried to follow WP:DR and ask him to stop, he just escalated his attacks, accusing me of harassing him, and complaining about me on several different admins' talk pages, routinely accusing me of things (personal attacks, harassment, sockpuppetry, etc.) that I had not done. Though I'm an experienced community manager in other venues, this was my first dispute on Wikipedia, and it rapidly became clear to me that there were different standards within this community than what I was used to elsewhere. So, I sought advice from other admins and Wikipedia editors on what to do, got many conflicting opinions, but ultimately decided to try creating my first-ever RfC, so I set up a draft subpage to gather information [4]. However, again to my surprise, this was then labeled an "attack page". Then one of DreamGuy's allies posted a complaint about me and my "smear campaign" on ANI [5], and literally just a few minutes later I found myself suddenly permanently locked out of Wikipedia by David Gerard (talk · contribs · logs) for a "sustained campaign of personal attacks, clearly not here to write an encyclopedia in any way" [6], despite the fact that I had created dozens of articles, accomplished over 1000 edits, and never been a problem user of any kind. I read up more on how to contest a block, brought up the problem on the mailing list, and the block was reversed within 24 hours, but there was still a great deal of drama involved, both on and off Wikipedia.[7]
Looking back on it, though I can't say it was a pleasant experience, it was definitely a crash course in the official and unofficial ways that the Wikipedia dispute resolution process works, and I learned a great deal, especially about which Wikipedia policies are and are not routinely enforced. As similar situations have occurred since, I definitely used the knowledge that I thus gained to help discern when or if certain situations need to be escalated through the Wikipedia dispute resolution process, and which ones need to be just "let go for now". I am also proud of the way that I maintained a civil demeanor throughout the conflict, even when faced with multiple individuals (some with considerably more power than I) who were leveling (what I felt to be) false accusations at me.
Probably the next most serious conflict that I've ever been involved in, has to do with a series of disputed page moves involving medieval Eastern European monarchs. It was a long messy situation that involved multiple editors, and many different Poland-related (and Lithuania-related) articles. To make a long story short, it dragged on for months. When the dust finally settled, one editor had been permanently blocked, another had been discovered to have been using at least three sockpuppets to influence votes, and an admin had been asked to resign [8]. . For my own part, I would like to think that I was one of the people involved who was helping to untangle the mess, as I seemed to have the respect of many (though not all) people from different sides of the conflict. Also, one positive aspect of the whole thing, was that some of us who were most at odds with each other were able to learn better ways to communicate throughout the process [9]. For anyone who wants more info, there is a very lengthy discussion which involves several different users at a Mediation Cabal page, with probably the best summary of (what I saw as) both sides of the debate, here: [10].
If my own request for adminship is approved, My own goal as an admin is to be sensitive to the nuances of Wikipedia culture, and to adapt to the norms of this particular community. When in doubt about a particular situation, I plan to review Wikipedia precedent to see the "typical" ways that such situations are handled. And if I have any doubt, I will stick with my own core values, of remaining civil, giving the benefit of the doubt to new users who may not be aware of Wikipedia policy (unless there is clear evidence otherwise), attempting to remain fair and neutral in controversial situations, and being sensitive to the issue of how Wikipedia is perceived by "the outside world," and trying to keep things as positive as possible.

Question from Picaroon9288

4. Could you explain your conflict with Danny, as evidenced by this afd debate? Has it been resolved? Picaroon9288 00:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have a detailed answer to this question at User_talk:Guinnog#Question #2. If you'd like additional information, just ask.  :) --Elonka 11:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Irongargoyle

5. Under what conditions (if any) would you edit an article relating to yourself or a close family member in the future? Are there any limits on the types of edits you would make? Also, if a user were blatantly vandalizing one of the afformentioned pages, would you use your tools to block said vandal after appropriate warnings were given? Irongargoyle 04:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A: I am in full agreement with WP:AUTO, that it is very difficult to write about oneself in a completely neutral manner, and that it is far better for a third party to write an article about someone, to ensure objectivity and neutrality. Accordingly, to avoid even the appearance of partiality, I no longer participate in the editing of articles about me or my immediate family. My last edit to the Elonka Dunin bio was over five months ago, in May, and I have no intention to further edit it. The only reason I could think of which would make me reconsider that stand, would be to revert vandalism, and even then it would only be if the vandalism were extreme in nature, and no one else had gotten to it for an extended period of time, since I firmly believe that *any* major vandalism involving profanity or personal attacks, makes Wikipedia look bad no matter whose article it is on. But even at that point, I would still try to find another neutral editor to make the call, rather than doing it myself. I would also not take any direct action against any such vandal, but would instead allow that decision to be made by other administrators. --Elonka 07:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question from A. B.

6. Would you consider adding yourself to Category:Administrators open to recall? --A. B. 04:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A: Yes. --Elonka 07:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Malber (talk · contribs)

7. What do the policy of WP:IAR and the essay WP:SNOW mean to you and how would you apply them?
A: In summary, they mean that rules should never be a substitute for common sense, and that sometimes it's more important to stop wasting time and just move forward, rather than to fill out all the paperwork. In actual practice though, I can't see myself ever specifically invoking either one of them, since for any particular situation, there's usually some other policy or guideline somewhere that's already been written about the subject. That said, I do agree that Process is important, and as long as there is even a single editor who's voicing good faith opposition to a particular action, it's worthwhile following that process. The recent mediation that I was involved in about the Lost articles was a case in point. A disagreement continued for several months, between two groups of relatively civil and good faith editors. It finally proceeded to mediation, and through continued efforts from both sides, we were finally able to come to a unanimous agreement and move forward. In that case, the process really was what helped us through, and I think we're now a much stronger team because of it. --Elonka 07:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. How important is it for an administrator to keep a sense of humor?
A: Well, depends on the administrator, and depends on the type of humor.  ;) I personally think that a sense of humor is a definite help when dealing with people, but it's not an absolute requirement. For myself, I was actually hoping that someone here would ask me the "glass half-full / half-empty" question, so that I could give my "engineer" answer, that the glass is obviously twice as big as it needed to be in the first place!  ;) --Elonka 07:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Imoeng (talk · contribs)

9. Will sysop tools likely reduce your mainspace editing?
A: I plan to continue both. Regardless of whether or not this RfA is successful, I will continue doing other administrator-like activities, such as the work I've been doing at Special:Uncategorizedpages and Category:Category needed. --Elonka 22:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
General comments

Elonka's editcount summary stats as of 21:30 October 17 2006, using Interiot's tool. (aeropagitica) 21:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion (for expressing views without numbering)

Support

  1. STRONG support from nominator. Elonka would be an outstanding sysop! SergeantBolt (t,c) 20:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support — Why should Elonka be a SysOp? Well, I’ve seen nothing but level headed respect from this user, no incivility and lots of friendliness. This user really works to improve the encyclopaedia which is one thing I like in a user. The user seems well versed in every aspect of Wikipedia I can think of. I can’t think of a reason not to make her a SysOp – Just pure benefits to the project. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support tactful, level-headed, clearly working to improve the project... should make a good admin. --W.marsh 20:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support -- If Elonka's foolish (i.e., charitable) enough to volunteer even MORE time to wikipedia land, she's definitely got the chops to do it (IMHO). Besides, it'll keep her off the streets ;) -- Quartermaster 21:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. Rock on!! íslenskur fellibylur #12 (samtal) 21:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. I like her style. --Guinnog 21:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Very Strong Support An incredible editor! Will certainly not abuse the tools. -- P.B. Pilhet / Talk 21:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Very Strong Support. I have encountered this user on one of her article's FAC noms, and found the interaction pleasant and prompt. Will make an excellent admin. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 21:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support an excellent editor, with a truly impressive contribution history, who provided thoughful and insightful answers to the questions. Gwernol 21:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Switching to Neutral for now, until we hear more from Elonka about the edits to her own article that Guinnog found. Gwernol 01:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Seems like a fine candidate for adminship. (aeropagitica) 21:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support per nom. Michael 21:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Strong Support. She has the experience and skills required to become an administrator on Wikipedia. She has great article-building skills, and is not scared to discuss her thoughts. Excellent answer to Q3. Shows that the user has changed dramatically since the incident, and that she is not afraid to recognize her faults and previous record. Nishkid64 21:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support per nomination. This is one of those candidates where you wonder why it hasn't happened sooner. Agent 86 22:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Strong Support Great experience and would be able to use sysop tools wisely. As per Nish, the user is able to recognize her own faults after the incident. (Got edit-conflicted in posting this.) Hello32020 22:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support As a new (< 1 month) user I received a lengthy, helpful, courteous and unsolicited note from the nominee after I had blundered into unfamiliar territory. Need I say more? (Also edit-conflicted in posting.) Ben MacDui 22:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Strong support. Wow, this should have happened a long time ago. On top of the strong encyclopedic contributions and great insight (see my RfA for an example) it takes some serious grit to go through the kind of injustice seen in question three and come back to contribute in a very positive manner. An obvious choice. Grandmasterka 22:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. In my opinion Elonka has grown a lot as a Wikipedian this year. I think she's ready for the plunger now. Haukur 23:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. Elonka Dunin is a fine contributor and has my full support. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. An impressive user, i havnt seen anyone better suited to be an administrator.--Fabio 00:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Strong support per answers to questions. Go get 'em! --Coredesat 00:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC) Changed to oppose, see below. --Coredesat 00:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support per Cordesat. Cordesat's concerns are very valid, but I don't think it needs more than a tap on the wrist. Rama's arrow 00:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Strong support per answers to RFA questions and a quite impressive edit history. RFerreira 00:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support, seems like a nice person and experience with online communities is a great thing. She has the wiki experience to be an administrator now. bbx 00:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Full Support per everything above and answers to questions. No doubt in my mind Wikipedia will benefit with this editor as an admin. AuburnPilotTalk 00:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support  Doctor Bruno  00:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. The contribution to multiple featured articles and establishing 150 others strengthens my endorsement. Yamaguchi先生 01:42, 18 October 2006
  24. Support. Anyone who has withstood Danny's abuse and the endless tearing down of her good name, and then stood up to want to continue to help a project deserves a fair shot at doing so. Wikipedia has more than enough locks in place against "Rogue Admins", and Elonka has shown herself both a great advocate of Wikipedia and a person with the smarts to improve it. --Jscott 01:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. I have found nothing but respect for her in all of my professional dealings with her. She is and has always been a class act. I value her contributions to the project. --Froggy 01:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak Support. "Support" because of the strong track record. "Weak" because of the issues raised by Danny, someone I respect. I'd probably be a "Neutral" but for the surprising aggressiveness of Danny's stance in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elonka Dunin (2nd nomination). --A. B. 02:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to "Neutral" pending answers to questions 5 and 6 above.--A. B. 11:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support (changed back from neutral)-- It's time to get off the fence as a neutral and decide -- this RfA closes soon. I've been troubled by some stuff I've read here about Elonka's vanity edits and some of her previous scrapes but I also have been impressed to learn how much she's contributed. To the extent that she was more of a coordinator/volunteer/cheerleader/taskmaster on the "Lost" category of articles than a solo writer, I see that as a plus, not a negative. I know she has a strong ego (the world needs some of these people) and I trust she'll temper it in the future. If not, I am reassured by her answer to question 6 above regarding administrators open to recall. --A. B. 17:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I'll be very interested to see how you respond to Irongargoyle's question #5 above. I hope the answer is that you will never make any edits to articles involving you, family members or organizations you run. (Edits to article talk pages are OK).--A. B. 04:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Also, there's no reason to use your blocking powers to block vandals of your article since there is an established process, WP:AIV, established that will provide a much more objective assessment of the problem. Besides, it's what the 99.9% of us that aren't admins use. I really dislike vandalism and tend to view them more harshly than many admins, but I see too much potential for abuse here -- an editor's view of what's vandalism to their own article may be clouded by conflicts of interest. So I hope your answer to that part of question #5 would also be "no".--A. B. 14:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Wikipedia's guidance is a little conflicted; WP:AUTO suggest limiting edits to correcting errors such as dates of birth. It appears that the Vanity guideline has recently been forked into two new guidelines: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Editing with a conflict of interest. WP:COI says don't write about yourself: "Don't write about yourself, nor about the things you've done or created. If they are encyclopedic, somebody else will notice them and write an article about them." It also describes editing such articles as a "violation of the soft policy" (a new phrase to me). WP:ECOI mostly seems directed at corporations; it says "If you wish to suggest additions or changes to a pre-existing article, use that article's talk page." Bottom-line for me is that it's pretty tacky for a newbie, wrong for experienced editors and totally unacceptable for admins (other than to correct important mistakes); talk page suggestions are OK as long as the person's user page states the conflict (not just their own articles but also family members). --A. B. 11:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support excellent candidate, give her the mop.  ALKIVAR™ 02:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support I don't always agree with this editor, but I cannot quarrel with her energy and thoughtfulness of edits. A hard worker who deserves to be an admin if she wants to take that on. PKtm 03:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support --Terence Ong (T | C) 05:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support per nom. The consernes raised by some of the oppose voters don't ruin my impression of Elonka being a fine, mature and hard working wikipedian that I trust will use the admin tools to do even more good for the project. Shanes 05:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support, great editor. —Xezbeth 06:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Strong Support. Whew, this is my first vote since China unbanned Wikipedia. (I'm from China). This candidate may have some problems, but we're here to select an admin, not to select a saint. I mean, she may not be perfect, but that doesn't stop her from qualifying as a sysop! --Exir KamalabadiJoin Esperanza! 08:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support; so if you have your own article you are not allowed to edit it? Come on people..--Andeh 09:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support valuable contributions time and again, wikipedia needs more editors like here --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 09:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Good editor, nice person, I don't find any of the opposes in the least bit worrying. Martin 10:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. I see no problem with Elonka, who is not the only contributor about whom we have an encyclopedia artricle. >Radiant< 11:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support. Never had any problems in my dealings with her. Deb 11:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support I don't think that editing an article about yourself (as opposed to creating) prohibits adminship. Catchpole 12:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. Do I have misgivings about her editing of articles about herself and the rest of her family? Yes, strong ones. But I don't see where she's done anything potentially wrong outside of those articles, or how the WP:VAIN issues overwhelm the overall good she's done for Wikipedia. --Aaron 17:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC) Changing vote to reluctant oppose; see below.[reply]
  39. Support without reservation, she is a great editor who would be even better as an administrator. Silensor 17:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support as she seems to be a good editor who would make a fine admin. --Myles Long 18:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Weak Support She is a very good editor. Although she edited a link to her user page, that incident was a year ago. She has matured considerably since then and I feel that it is now time to give her the additional resposibilities. --Siva1979Talk to me 18:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support as her demonstrated character on Wikipedia and elsewhere shows she'll make a good, non-abusive SysOp. --AndyFinkenstadt 19:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Strong support. I don't much contribute to Wikipedia anymore, but when I did, I had extensive experience working with Elonka, especially during the supposed DreamGuy controversy. Elonka wanted a few personal attacks against her removed, and I found her request reasonable, especially given her value to the project as a knowledgeable contributor. Editors are a dime a dozen around here—knowledgeable editors, like Elonka, are relatively rare. Having the flexibility and latitude of the administrator tools, I believe Elonka can be even more of an asset. We need to focus more on what is best for the project, rather than continuing the ridiculous drama and power games that Wikipedia has degenerated into. A few honest mistakes early in one's tenure at Wikipedia—and an unfortunate encounter with jerks like DreamGuy—should not keep someone as superbly qualified as Elonka from adminship. Philwelch 19:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)\[reply]
  44. Support. Editor obviously has experience and skills which would make her an asset to the admin staff, IMO. --Fire Star 火星 19:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support. --Ligulem 20:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Full Support. Elonka has proven her dedication to Wikipedia over and over again. Great work! Ganfon 21:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support. Some personal article edits were inappropriate, but I think the editor has made a lot of effort to understand and follow policy. Overall an asset, and I would trust with the mop. --Aguerriero (talk) 21:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support. Too much of the the opposition is a personality-based vendetta. There's nothing wrong with standing up against an apparatchik. VivianDarkbloom 21:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Full Support. Has handled extremely difficult situations with restraint when others such as myself would have been less patient. She’s also significantly contributed to 2 featured articles. Englishrose 21:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No, she hasn't significantly contributed to 2 featured articles. See my reply to R.D.H. Ghost in the Machine, below. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support, good editor who is unlikely to abuse admin tools. JYolkowski // talk 22:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Strong support. DreamGuy aka Victrix aka Gzornenplatz aka Wik is a menace to Wikipedia. Anyone who has taken the time to try minimise the poisonous effects of his abuse is a saint. --Gene_poole 22:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Excuse me? Gzornenplatz?? Wik?? What on earth does DreamGuy have to do with Wik? Do you take RFA to be a place for completely random insults? Bishonen | talk 23:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    There's nothing "random" about my comments. A basic behavioural analysis of DreamGuy's long and tortured history of abuse supports the thesis. Multiple editors have independently arrived at the same conclusion. Open and shut case really. --Gene_poole 00:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Then you won't mind naming one or two of these "multiple" editors who have accused DreamGuy of being Wik, will you? Bishonen | talk 00:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    Sure. Email me and I'll be happy to share names. Gene_poole 00:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This "open and shut case" against DG is a secret, is it...? But making the unsupported, not to mention absurd, accusation right here was OK, was it? Bishonen | talk 01:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    Agreed. Please don't disrupt this RfA by making unfounded (as of now) statements against users simply because you disagree with his opinion of the candidate hoopydinkConas tá tú? 01:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Bishonen: No need to get snippy because just because you don't like someone stating the bleeding obvious. Frankly, I thought it was already common knowledge. Either way it's relevant to the vote because those voting to oppose the nomination may not be aware of it, and this may unfairly colour their opinion of the nominee. --Gene_poole 02:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Gene, this is absolutely positively not the place to be making statements like that, particularly when they aren't substantiated. I'm not particularly fond of DreamGuy either, but a) I do not believe that he is Wik, and b) this is not the place to bring up such accusations. Taking into account time zones, I am giving you twelve hours to retract your statements, or I will be forced to temporarily block you. DS 03:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This may be inappropriate here, but what blockable offense has been committed? Please don't fling blocking around unless there's a serious problem in play. Georgewilliamherbert 19:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, there's the whole double-voting thing, since Centauri (see below) is Gene_poole's sockpuppet. See here, which references this ("Centauri" answering a question addressed to "Gene poole", using the first-person) and this, the immediate attempt to remove it). --Calton | Talk 22:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Funny. The last time this accusation was dredged up it was by Gzornenplatz. You don't think there could be some connection, do you? --Gene_poole 00:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Funny. When I pointed this out at the time you made vague handwaving gestures of utter irrelevancy to avoid saying anything specific -- such as, you know, denying it directly. Familiar-seeming technique, for some reason. You don't think there could be some connection, do you? --Calton | Talk 02:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that I denied it directly when the accusation was first made, maybe I just don't see the necessity of repeating myself. --Gene_poole 02:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support. Danny's vendetta/attacks against this user are simply bizarre. Merzbow 01:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. support this person to become a administrator with many months of good work Yuckfoo 01:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support - The incidents mentioned below happened ages ago. Get over it. - Hahnchen 02:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Strong Support - She's done more in her stay here than much of the people complaining about her. Tordek 03:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. Seems to have done consistently good work for Wikipedia. --Centauri 05:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    One per customer please. I should probably strike both votes for disruption, but I suppose we can allow one. - Taxman Talk 16:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support. Powerful editor with additional decency included. A++ // Gargaj 06:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support. I see here a very productive editor who has tried to work with the rules. I don't see any reason to presume she will misuse admin tools. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 09:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support I see no connection between having her own bio and being able to use the tools properly. Abuse of the tools on her own article would be immediately apparent. Adminship is no big deal. —Malber (talk • contribs) 12:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. Satisfied by the response to my question and otherwise have only been impressed by this editor's credentials. Irongargoyle 12:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC) Changed to oppose Irongargoyle 23:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support, especially per Q5 and the old diffs in oppose section do not convince me of a threat posed by her having the mop and bucket. As a sometimes contentious editor, I would encourage Ms. Dunin to voluntarily place herself in the recall category, though I would not oppose if she chose not to do so. -- nae'blis 15:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support. Past is past. She deserves a chance, give her the mop! --Asteriontalk 18:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support per nom and Malber. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 20:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support - After a few early mis-steps Elonka has done a lot of fine work in areas that have needed more attention. I am satisfied that she has addressed the legitimate concerns expressed. As an admin she will be an asset to the project. Tom Harrison Talk 01:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support --'''The''' ''Big'' <s>'''Picture'''</s> 01:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment User's third ever edit; first two were to own user page and to own talk page. --Guinnog 06:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support This user has made mistakes in his past.Darn. SOADLuver 06:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support per nom Doc ♬ talk 19:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support per above --Paukrus 21:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support Dr. Dan 03:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC) To deny Elonka an administratorship based on the "opposed" votes' argument strikes me as ludicrous and a touch vindictive. I can understand the "neutral" positions much better. Just the same, promoting one's Grandma is fair game (as long as there is legitimate notability and no original research involved). So get over it and let this outstanding individual help make WP better. Keep up your fine work, Elonka![reply]
    Support Oppose reasons sound a bit strained and strident. We all make mistakes. I hope that if I run the community does not oppose for mistakes I made when I was new. Hopefully, my contributions have more than made up for my mistakes. I'm sure Elonka's have. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Switch to oppose based on concerns over fiefdom and conflict of interest. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support I came to know Elonka on Wikipedia when she followed some of my edits and decided I needed to learn something more about appropriate Wikipedia protocol. So she took it upon herself to teach me! And I feel like a better editor for her efforts. A dedicated Wikipedian! -JustinHall 18:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support because of two things: 1. superb mediation efforts on Talk:Jogaila and 2. general clean up efforts on Special:Uncategorized. Renata 19:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Suppprt, echoing Dlohcierekim's statement. --Interiot 21:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support, meticulously cites her articles, has a long reputation as a consistent and useful editor of Wikipedia. Romanpoet 22:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support, I support Elonka due to her stated reliance on herself, her stated tolerance of new users- which is a willingness to allow the community to grow and evolve, and her emphasis on harmony. Tnfiddler 00:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment This user's 8th edit. --Guinnog 03:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see the relevance of the number of my edits. I prefer debating issues rather than reputations or personal issues. AND, I would have more edits if my articles didn't keep getting deleted. Tnfiddler 03:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The number of edits looks suspicious. When you indicate more knowledge of Wikipedia than your user history indicates, people have to wonder if you're using multiple usernames. Therefore people have to wonder (a) what you've stirred up in the past and (b) whether or not this name is a sockpuppet for someone who has already voted, in which case people also have to wonder (c) how many of these votes come from the same person. Even if you're totally legit and didn't multiple-vote, using a brand new name hurts all those who voted 100% honestly and legitimately. Wryspy 08:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's understandable that the number of edits look suspicious. I have used wikipedia without a login for a long time, and it wasn't until I felt the need to change something that I created one. My knowledge of wikipedia comes from wikipedia articles- I just did some research. I have no idea of how to refute a sockpuppet charge. Perhaps one could check oesf.org/forums, where I have used the same moniker for a while and post more often. I apologize if my writing style has riled anyone- I love colorful language. Tnfiddler 18:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Strong support. Knows her subjects very well, and knows how to write about them equally so. 2 FAs (Which is 2 more than most voting here) bakcs up the assertion. This whole mess about WP:AUTO ("Glamor Photography" any one?:) and WP:VAIN is just more WP:BS and yet another example of Wikipedia's prejudice against expertise.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 11:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC) Changing to Neutral upon further review.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 19:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: RDH, have you researched her contributions to these two FAs? She made a small handful of copyedit-type edits to Lost (TV series) while it was in FAC (the day before it was promoted, in fact), and only three significant edits ([11], [12], [13]) to Marian Rejewski. I think the nominator may have overstated the significance of her contributions to FACs. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The Oppose folks are really pulling out the stops on this one, it seems. This is wrong, both in fact and in approach. As another of the long-standing and very active participants in the Lost articles (which reach far beyond just the lead article), I can attest to Elonka's active and key participation in that realm. And I say this even though we've knocked heads from time to time. She was key to the recent mediation and continues to be key in the work involved in its aftermath: see Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Lost episodes, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lost/Episode guidelines. -- PKtm 19:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Calling my comment "unfactual" in your edit summary is a personal attack, and one I don't appreciate or understand. I'm not sure what is wrong with you, you aren't even addressing what I said: I made no comment about Elonka's general standard of contribution; I only commented that, if you believed she made significant contributions to two FAs, you were being misled. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Citing facts can never be a personal attack. As opposed to, say, stating "I'm not sure what is wrong with you", which is. The Lost article was one of the FAs; I had facts and links to cite that related to her contributions there, and those facts contradict what you had to say. -- PKtm 20:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess you don't understand how FAs work. An article doesn't become FA because it is part of a good network of articles. It becomes FA standing on its own. Show me Elonka's significant contributions to the FA, Lost (TV series). Otherwise this is all bluster. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, "this is all bluster" is another personal attack, I should point out. Not to mention the open condescension in "I guess you don't understand how FAs work." You're an admin already, of course; if you were going through the RfA process now, though, don't you imagine that snarky comments like that to users might get trotted out as evidence to oppose you? I certainly can, at least if the behaviors evinced in this RfA are an indication. Let's get back to facts. The Lost universe has relevant discussion and debates happening all over, on subpages such as (but certainly not limited to) the ones cited above. For example, Wikipedia:WikiProject Lost, or Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Lost episodes (and again, I would note that she and I were on opposing sides in that mediation). Elonka's contributions in these forums have been voluminous, respectful, and goal-oriented, as befits an admin, which is (!) what we should be discussing here, rather than looking for further spurious ways to arbitrarily carp about the dedication of someone who's made over 10,000 edits in WP in general. As for specific Lost (TV series) article contributions, your comment above ignores her contributions to a key Lost article controversy (episode articles vs. season articles, where (aside from participating on the forums including the mediation, she made numerous edits on September 12 to the flagship article, including but not limited to here, here, here. I could search and find more, but it also seems evident to me that you missed those yourself, perhaps because you've made up your mind already. -- PKtm 21:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I strongly encourage all interested parties to look at the three diffs provided and decide if they demonstrate a substantial contribution to Lost (TV series). I didn't miss them; I studied every edit Elonka made to the article. She has not made significant contributions to it. That is all I am saying, and you keep trying to change the topic. I credit that she may have done wonderful stuff in other Lost areas. I am simply trying to correct any misimpression people may have that she has contributed substantially to two FAs. She has not. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This point you're making is moving beyond a simple correction, and now risks coming off as simply petty and mean-spirited. Let me lay it out: I'm asserting, as another active member in the community which led to the Lost article achieving FA status, that Elonka is active and highly regarded in that community. No flagship article in a network gets much new text added to it; 99% of my own activity there is reverting vandalism and speculation. Going hunting for some big block of text that any of us (the top ten or so contributors) has ourselves contributed will be futile. The gap you're pointing to is not even close to being a gap, in other words. If you heard that no one in the Lost article space even knew her name, that'd be one thing, but here, that's not so. What are you really trying to accomplish? I'm not changing the topic at all; the topic, after all, is admin-worthiness. -- PKtm 02:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support. I was on the fence regarding this nomination but since having met Elonka in person my doubts about her credibility and worthiness as an admin have been assuaged. Sparr 19:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    User's 16th edit. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support. After reading her responses (quite good answers), and meeting her in person, I believe that she would be a great admin for wikipedia. These attacks are rubbish. Alex 20:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support. per nom. Seems like a good editor. Reywas92Talk 21:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support is a great contributer of wiki. if found unfitting for the position what says we can't revert? rewtguy 03:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: User's 15th edit; 5 of the others involved Elonka-related AfDs. --A. B. 03:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support Extremely capable, a good editor and a solid candidate. Aestetix 18:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    User's 11th edit. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support Great contributor to Wikipedia and would make an excellent administrator. Cwire4 19:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    User's 16th edit. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support — the more the merrier. Triddle 20:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support I think she'll be good for wikipedia. Subversified 23:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. How does someone whose user contribution history indicates they haven't edited anything at Wikipedia in over two months know to vote on this? From December through February, your main (and very first) contributions to Wikipedia were to build up Elonka's bio. Wryspy 01:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I work with Elonka over at IGDA. We were talking wikis the other day and her nomination for admin here came up in the conversation. I thought I'd drop by and lodge my vote in favor. I contribute to wikipedia when I have time, although I've been too busy the last few months. As for "building up" Elonka's bio, I did flesh out that article a while ago, yes. It was a little hard to understand.Subversified 04:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And she created the article for a member of your family? I had never ever heard of her before last week, but she really disturbs me. So much of what she does seems one big clusterf... mutual appreciation society that skirts the limits of self-promotion. How is it that a number of people voting here have met her? Shouldn't her merits as an admin be decided wholly based on her contributions to Wikipedia? Wryspy 05:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If I had to guess, I'd say people are meeting her through events at which she is a guest/speaker, such as Dragon*Con (I saw her on the program, but missed meeting her), Game Developers Conference, Notacon, DEF CON, PhreakNIC, and others. Or, maybe they work for the CIA... -- nae'blis 15:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Strong Support Worked with her on a mediation and other disputes, one of the more diplomatic Wikipedians. Good luck. -- Wikipedical 23:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support I've worked with her on Lost articles, and she has proven to be a very level-headed and responsible editor. Jtrost (T | C | #) 23:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Qualified Support I would encourage Elonka to be open-minded towards areas where strict enforcement of Wikipedia policy might result in inferior content (this is in relation to the deletion discussion surrounding the article Danah Boyd). -- Joebeone (Talk) 00:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Strong Support She'd be good for Wikipedia. Stromcarlson 01:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support-Really a valuable contributor -Nileena joseph 04:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support. She has had to put up with more than anyone I have seen here yet, and has managed. Compared to that, the stresses of adminship are minor. AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose. Has used wikipedia for self-promotional purposes. Danny 00:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There's some history here -- see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elonka Dunin (2nd nomination) for more background on Danny's position and on the AfD he initiated for the Elonka Dunin article. --A. B. 02:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Weak oppose per Danny. I made the mistake of reviewing the questions first and the contribs and concerns last. Sure, you have a lot of experience here, but heavy work on the articles on yourself and your father border on WP:VAIN and WP:AUTO. I'm a bit worried about self-promotion myself. --Coredesat 00:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose largely per Danny and my own beliefs that the candidate is not suited for adminship due to a potential conflict of interest and vanity issues hoopydinkConas tá tú? 00:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Although I respect this editor, I would feel uncomfortable granting her the admin tools; consequently, I must oppose. DS 00:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose: how do the several non-trivial edits made on 24 December 2005 to Elonka Dunin fit in with "I try very hard to be mindful of WP:AUTO" just below? As an admin you would be expected to enforce policy and this is very worrying in a candidate. Sorry, as you are undoubtedly a great editor and a genuinely interesting person of the type we need more of. But this changes my mind. Thanks Danny. --Guinnog 00:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC) changed to neutral[reply]
    The edit sequence concerned can be found in this diff. I too would like to hear Elonka's response to these edits. Gwernol 01:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Shucks we better fire Jimbo then too! He's made several edits to his own bio as well... OOPS! ...and now for the proof... [14] [15] [16] ... I also find it interesting this is when Jimbo removes Larry's credit as co-founder. [17] [18] [19] ... or these times he starts the whole "glamour photography" bullcrap sorry Jimmy we all know Bomis did Porn...  ALKIVAR™ 03:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the questions. I have posted a thorough reply at User_talk:Guinnog#Elonka RfA, which I hope will address any concerns. If you have any additional questions, please let me know.  :) --Elonka 10:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose per Danny and Guinnog's concerns -- Tawker 01:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose editing your own bio doesn't bother me in itself, but adding a link to your user page? Granted, it was a year ago, but that's ridiculous. Opabinia regalis 01:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It was a year ago, that's ridiculous. Yamaguchi先生 02:07, 18 October 2006
  7. Oppose My concerns are greater than Age020 below (neutral section). Wikipedia is not a family album, and as the wikisaying goes: if you're important enought to have a wikipedia article, let someone else write it -- Drini 02:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose per Drini. Naconkantari 04:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose per Danny, Drini, and others. 1ne 06:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose per Danny, and above concerns —— Eagle (ask me for help) 11:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose. Mainly because she's a minor celebrity. --Dangherous 13:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    How will this make her less able as an administrator? If you believe this to be an important factor, please provide some evidence. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 20:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose per Danny. JBKramer 15:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose per behavior at AfD - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose per above, the edit warring and image issues during the DreamGuy incident are also worrying. (The google search mentioned here, for example. Ehheh 16:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose per Danny and per contentious unpleasantness displayed during the DreamGuy incident. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Strong oppose for long history of abusing Wikipedia for self-promotional purposes, wikistalking (for which she was blocked by User:David Gerard) of those she has disputes with, putting up a website (originally at http://www.elonka.com/wikipedia/ and titled "The Block of a Notable Wikipedian" but has since been modified) that demanded that Wikipedia do what she wanted because she was famous and important and knows more than everyone else, systematic erasing of other people's comments on various talk pages whenever she felt she was portrayed in less than a flattering light (when all they were doing was demonstrating her activities and she was consistently saying far worse things about other editors in far more places) and so forth and so on. It'd be difficult to think of an individual who would be more likely to abuse adminship powers than this person. DreamGuy 19:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to note I've had no problem whatsoever since and don't see that block as something I'd consider a factor now - David Gerard 20:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There's nothing at that URL on Wayback Machine -- are you sure about that URL? Might it be something else? --A. B. 20:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That was the page... There are multiple mentions of it in old discussions, and Elonka admits to doing it in those old discussions... she had a long list of demands, including that various admins she hated be banned, that she get to censor whatever she wanted that mentioned her name, her fear of being Google searched for the term "Elonka lie" hurting her professional career, and so forth.DreamGuy 06:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "people's comments on various talk pages whenever she felt she was portrayed in less than a flattering light", I don't want to go back to old haunted mansions but those comments that DreamGuy is on about were plain personal attacks and she had a right to ask for admins to remove them, which they agreed to.Englishrose 22:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely untrue... She labeled all sorts of things personal attacks that were not in any way, shape or form. All the while making the exact same statements about other people and demanding that those stay. It was discussed previously, but of course you make the denial because Elonka happened to come along and assist you in your harassment of me and other editors. DreamGuy 06:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    She confirms the title herself. Although I don't see this as an issue: she was notable Wikipedian and was blocked, it's pure fact.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  02:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The title isn't the issue, it was her attitude toward the whole thing, her continued insistence that her wikistalking, personal attacks, and revenge edits on articles she had no previous history with -- as confirmed by David Gerard's ban (which was an indefinite ban at first because of the seriousness and lessened later) -- were the right way to handle things. Since she is still insisting no wrongdoing whatsoever, she's clearly not up to following Wikipedia policies on conflict resolution. DreamGuy 06:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If someone wishes to oppose my adminship simply because they don't like me, that is of course their right. But if someone's going to be making deliberately false statements here, then I believe that I have the right to challenge those statements and say that they are untrue. For the record, DreamGuy's assertions about what I was saying on my webpage (such as that I was asking for administrators to be banned), are incorrect. For proof of something that I did say at the time, please see this message that I posted to the Wikipedia mailing list [20] on January 29, 2006. --Elonka 04:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Serious Oppose, my experience of the user during the "DreamGuy incident" makes me consider her unsuitable for admin tools. Full disclosure: I'm the user she describes in her point 3 as "one of DreamGuy's allies". I hope those familiar with my admin actions know I'm nobody's ally. I quote a little from my original, January, charge against her (please click on the links!):
    "User:Elonka ... has been impervious to all suggestions that she stop [her ongoing smear campaign against DreamGuy] voluntarily,[21], [22] [23]; see especially this kindly and exemplary message from Friday. This started with a not-very-remarkable AFD conflict, but seems to have taken on a life of its own, with Elonka spending most of her wikitime on it... As Hipocrite puts it, "she's gone to every admin and problem user that DreamGuy has interacted with forever"[24], and instead of keeping her dirt page User:Elonka/DreamGuy dispute discreetly in her space, as I have advised, she's spamming more and more far-fetched usertalk pages with invitations to contribute. She claims that DG ... has "sociopathic tendencies" [25], "has a demonstrated pattern of abusive behavior... That's why I am building this case... as long as he refuses to apologize, I will continue to build the case."[26] See also this unusually frank remark for light on her recent storm of posts on DG's page, which she otherwise insists was intended as "good-faith dispute resolution". Dip into Elonka's contribs at random, then into DG's: the visual created is of one person pounding on another's door day and night and yelling "Come down and LEAVE ME ALONE!" while the target occasionally shouts "Go away!" from an upper window."
    January is a long time ago, in wikitime, but what worries me is that Elonka, per her answer to question 3, still feels she was the aggrieved party, still is "proud of the way that I maintained a civil [sic] demeanor throughout the conflict", and clearly still feels self-righteously resentful about it. I have had no interaction since, and would prefer to forget the ugly incident as a thing of the past, including Elonka's personal attacks (a sampling only: [27], [28], [29]), but her prideful and implacable description of it here just gives me a vision of a problem admin to come. Also, though this is only my opinion after possibly not reading all relevant posts in a complex affair, the conflict with Piotrus looks to me to have been resolved more through Piotrus' good faith and readiness to let go (see his neutral vote below), than any efforts in that direction by Elonka. Bishonen | talk 20:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  18. Strongly oppose, per the two right above me. I will not trust someone who's been blocked this way and still thinks the whole thing was an attack on themselves, with the admin tools. No, no, no. – Chacor 00:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Strong Oppose - Promo for this purpose shows ignorance or opposition to focus on some project goals -- not something we should hope to see in an admin. --Improv 03:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose; while the autobiographical concerns are big, so too are Bishonen's claims. Ral315 (talk) 08:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Strong Oppose per Danny, Bishonen and others. How in heaven, hell and purgatory someone can honestly think she can edit an article on herself, is beyond me. And if there were ever an article on myself and I felt unhappy about anything stated there, I would fiercely support its deletion were it put on AfD. Pasha from Belgium, --Pan Gerwazy 09:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Reluctant oppose. I like much of Elonka's work on Wikipedia, but the WP:AUTO issues really do concern me. Also, too much certainty in evidence for my liking. Guy 11:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Reluctant oppose per the very recent article (only created last month) on Elsie Ivancich Dunin, who is probably not notable enough to survive AfD, and on which Jimbo Wales himself had to go in and blank most of the contents as a WP:OR violation. While Elonka has never directly edited that article, it raises a whole host of questions as to whether or not her entire family is involved in using Wikipedia as a WP:VAIN-violating promotion machine. If this is adequately explained, I'll revert my vote back to a "support". --Aaron 11:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Aaron's comment led me to dig a little. I'm troubled by the history of AfDs for Elonka's parents -- it looks like there started to be an AFD for her mother's article but it was cancelled the next day by EVula.
    The first AfD for her father closed without consensus in May. Harangus initiated a second AfD three weeks ago, but the tag was removed within an hour by Englishrose as a "bad faith AfD nomination". The same editor, editing with an anonymous IP, 68.14.0.254, made the third attempt a few hours later after the second. This AfD tag was again removed within an hour by Maxamegalon2000. (Note that the anonymous edit appears to have been an innocent failure to log-in -- see Harangus' subsequent comment linking the two.) Within a few minutes of the second removal, Elonka queried 68.14.0.254 as to his/her identity. About an hour later, Englishrose characterized the second AfD nomination as vandalism and tagged 68.14.0.254 with a third level vandalism warning (his/her first warning). I'm hardly an admin, but this all seems sort of out of process as I thought I understood it. I think the process should normally prevail, regardless of the initiators' like or dislike of Elonka, if there is any reasonable question of notability. These were not speedy deletion nominations. I think many editors would in good faith characterize either parent's article as borderline in notability. --A. B. 17:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I can barely remember this incident but from the top of my head, the Elonka Dunin had received numerous AFDs one after the other, which were all rejected. Harangus' who had been placing the Elonka Dunin article under multiple AFDs, then placed AFD tag on the Stanley Dunin article. It wasn’t a complete AFD as it was linking back to an old AFD. The whole AFD process hadn’t been done properly as Harangus' had failed to properly do step 1 and had attempted to do Step 2 and 3. He’d also been blanking the Elonka Dunin article as well. It was also a “revenge” AFD from Harangus as Elonka had removed his name/spam from a disambiguation page [30][31], thus I assumed bad faith. I simply reverted rather than go through the process of doing the Stanley Dunin AFD myself. Anyhow, those quries seem to be in regards to me, which have nothing to do with Elonka.
    Also, as for the IP address related thing, which was Harangus. It had also blanked the Elonka Dunin page[32], which was vandalism. It has attempted to delete the page numerous times [33][34][35][36] so if that doesn't count all this doesn't count of vandalism then I don't what does. It also wasn't just that IP address, it had been targetted multiple times, which is why the situation was confusing. Englishrose 18:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose: I concur with Danny, but I have noticed that the inappropriate self-valuation has crept into other dealings with users and views on article fitness. Geogre 13:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be more helpful if you could cite specifics and provide links to these incidents. Thanks, PKtm 15:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If it were my intention to persuade, rebut, or argue, perhaps, but I am happy to allow others to check the evidence cited above, both pro- and con- and make up their own minds. My own feeling is that the editor's distorted view of her own relative importance would lead to many problems in the future that would not be remediable without serious action. Given how serious these actions are, I would be much quicker to vote to oppose on temperament than any simple mistakes in the past. I do not see that the temperament has changed a jot. Others are free to draw their own conclusions. Geogre 09:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, if you need an internal rationale instead of a judgment based on long observation, the answers to #3 and to the question on IAR were quite disagreeable to me. #3 still portrayed herself as the victim and admitted no fault, which is an egoism I fear, and I see IAR as barely applicable to any everyday activity. It applies simply to novel situations where existing rules cannot apply, if it applies at all, ever. If existing procedures and policies are cossetting us too much, then we should change them, not ignore them. Ignoring them implies a power differential instead of an exercise of trust. Geogre 11:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. I appreciate Elonka's excellent contribution to Wikipedia, but there is no way I can support this request for adminship. I know January was a long time ago in Wiki-time, but I was disturbed by what I saw of her behaviour and attitude during the DreamGuy dispute. She displayed qualities and personality traits I consider antithetical to adminship. In addition, I find this more than a little disquieting. I understand that it is a few months old, but its mere existence indicates, to me, a fundamental failure to understand policy. Policies like NPA apply to all pages on Wikipedia. If users wish to set up a virtual wrestling ring in order to conduct experiments or have discussions "unfettered by Wikipedia polices" or whatever, that's fine but they can do it on their own websites. And if they don't like Wikipedia policies, that's fine too: they can live with them, lobby to change them, or fork it. But they can't set up their own secret policy free fiefdoms within Wikipedia. Strong oppose. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 14:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose Self-promotion concerns and DreamGuy incident TigerShark 00:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose all too shamefully, in what may be my biggest RFA decision yet, self-promotional concerns pending. The article in question, her very own, dodged deletion last December and more recently in July. Alas, let me tell you, I've seen the problem persist at SIMPLE (where I am also a member); it was placed for deletion at this version's RFD page. To quote Cromwellt (talk · contribs · count) on the SIMPLE talk page: "This, my friends, is what is known as a vanity page. This is a big no-no, kids. If you are notable enough, someone else may write an article about you, but it is not okay to write an article about yourself, though you can put all of this information on your userpage without any problems". So there: whether involved in a self-advert for herself or not, I can never imagine a promising user like her have the mop for good. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 01:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait, since when do we require users to know our policies and guidelines when they join us?? I'll also note for completeness that Cromwellt also thanked her for joining the discussion and explaining in a reasonable manner why she created the page on simple. I also don't know what you're talking about with her deleting her own pages once she gets the mop (she wouldn't be able to delete it on simple, anyway). As stated above, Jimbo has edited his own article, and he certainly "ought to know better", if that is indeed as dastardly as we say. -- nae'blis 15:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    She wasn't blocked "due to promotional concerns stemming from that activity", she was blocked for attempting to create a RFC. She was originally blocked indefinitely but David Gerard realized it was a mistake and it was reduced to a week then later reduced even more, thus it was only one block, which was then reduced and then wiped out completely. Englishrose 19:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Strong oppose. This is not the person who needs admin power. Repeated violations of Wikipedia policy and guidelines, getting blocked, a vanity page with inappropriate self-promotion, either ignorance of or defiance to project goals, removing other people's comments from talk pages!!! . . . despite many conscientious contributions, there are too many reasons to withhold admin authority from this individual. Wryspy 02:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose per the issues discussed above. John254 03:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Strong oppose. An autobiographical article, however professionally inappropriate it may be, is forgiveable. Harassing another editor is not. --Hemlock Martinis 04:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose per Bishonen. --Ξxtreme Unction 05:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. And have you noticed what she's spending her time doing this week? She's going through article after article tagging them as needing categorization. Look at the times logged in her user contribution history. She's tagging them rapidly. If you have a specific category in mind for an article, just add the category yourself. If you do not have a specific category in mind, how can you know it needs any categorization? How can you evaluate them as needing categorization when you're going through them too rapidly to evaluate their nature? Yes, Wikipedia likes to have articles categorized, but tagging article after article as uncategorized without taking time to see what they're about and maybe just categorize them yourself seems like an odd use of time. Wryspy 05:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Er, they're being tagged so they no longer appear in Special:Uncategorized pages, as it only shows 1000 articles at any given time. Why would you need to evaluate anything? If it doesn't have any categories, it gets tagged. —Xezbeth 06:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, while I think it's a strange use of one's time, you're right. So what? Bringing up something like only distracts from the blatant problems of WP:VAIN, WP:AUTO, repeatedly making the same violations, getting blocked at least twice, deleting other people's comments from talk pages, and either ignorance of or stubborn defiance against Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and goals. Wryspy 07:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose given the WP:COI concerns, the DreamGuy incident, plus the answers to questions 5-8 were not as strong as I'd hope for. Thus, I'm not comfortable giving Elonka the tools.-- danntm T C 15:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose Self promotion concerns. TruthCrusader 15:27, 20 October 2006(UTC)
  34. Oppose. Per Danny, Opabinia regalis, Bishonen, and Geogre. WP:AUTO violations, Bishonen's concerns, as well as Geogre's comment, who I think brought up a valid point. NauticaShades 22:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Oppose due to vanity and block record. zephyr2k 02:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Oppose: I wasn't going to vote as the outcome seems obvious, but then remembering the Carnildo fiasco when Bureaucrat's (Who we must never again trust) ignored their responsibilities I have decided to risk being accused of "pile on". Having read all the above oppose comments with which I completely concur, and studied the diffs, and Elonka's edits: I am surprised that Elonka has not already withdrawn. She does indeed seem to consider herself a "minor celebrity" and her edit warring etc during the DreamGuy incident was more than concerning. No, I think we have enough admins as it is, we certainly do not need to add Elonka to their ranks. I fear she would ultimately use the magic buttons for the wrong reasons. Let's forget adminship "is no big deal" and make it "a big deal" give responsibility to those that have shown themselves not only dedicated to the project, but also responsible. Elonka has shown neither. Giano 18:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC
    Equally, I wasn't going to speak up further, but votes and strange rationalizations like the one above make me unable to hold back. Plain and simple, I feel this RfA has devolved into character assassination. Anyone who states, as in the above vote, that Elonka has not shown herself to be dedicated to the project just hasn't done their homework, or is operating with some agenda that I can't fathom. As for Elonka's ages-ago dispute with DreamGuy, well, I firmly believe that any neutral observer would look at DreamGuy's completely antagonistic behavior in that and many other incidents (he's been blocked 7 times) and conclude rapidly that Elonka actually operated with remarkable restraint in a difficult situation. This RfA has soured me on the WP process for admin selection. I can't imagine why anyone would subject themselves to it. Frankly, the lot of you should really be ashamed of yourselves. -- PKtm 20:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Weak Oppose per the WP:AUTO concerns and the recent edits pointed out by Aaron, TewfikTalk 04:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Strong Oppose. The above incidents demonstrate that Elonka's judgement and behaviour are a concern for any normal user, but simply unacceptable for an admin. Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 06:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Switch to oppose based on concerns over fiefdom and conflict of interest. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Strongly oppose for self-promotional articles. Additionaly, I do not believe that they would be able to avoid conflicts of interest if granted administrative privileges. [ælfəks] 15:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Oppose Suggest a check-user on all contributors to this RfA. Dlyons493
    Comment. I second that suggestion. Wryspy 01:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Oppose per Daveydweeb and others. Simply to much controversy and baggage - baggage that will no doubt cast a (perhaps unfair) shadow on any of her future controversial admin decisions. Dman727 19:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Switch to oppose. I was quite worried when I saw The cone of silence. Beyond the fact that it shows behavior (along with the WP:AUTO) that the user feels herself above the rules, it also brings up an interesting point that I don't think anyone else is mentioned: What supposed problem exists (because Elonka said that it was the solution to a problem) that could merit a secret page inviting personal attacks as the solution? Even if it is just an experiment, it shows the user is putting herself in situations that invite personal attacks. Not a good thing. Again, I want to emphasize that this editor has many valuable contributions, but the suspicion of sock (although more likely meat) puppetry has pushed me over the edge. Irongargoyle 23:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Oppose per all of the above, pluse we don't need more controversial admins, though I think she is a fine contributor. AniMate 23:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. opppose as per many above, Bishonen & Bunchofgrapes in particular. Pete.Hurd 02:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Oppose per Bishonen. Wikipediarules2221 04:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Oppose Per above. Truthseeker 85.5 14:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral Great user and will use the admin tools wisely. But concerned that the user has contributed to articles on herself as well as her father and her mother too has an article. I just feel that there is an element of vanity in her. --Ageo020 (Talk • Contribs) 21:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm just wondering how that would effect her as a Sysop... thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This user has shown that they can be trusted with admin tools and will respect all users that she deals with. I don't think the "element of vanity in her" would affect her judgment. Nishkid64 22:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Just for the record, none of the edits to my mother's article were made by me, and I did not even know about the article's existence on Wikipedia until after someone else drew my attention to it via my talk page while I was out of town (speaking at Butler University) [37] [38]. The extent of my involvement since then has been in creating a couple redirects, and updating a surname page [39]. I try very hard to be mindful of WP:AUTO. --Elonka 22:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral. The candidate clearly has experience and has made a wide range of useful contributions. However, I am a little concerned by the point raised by Danny – Gurch 00:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral for now. I am concerned by the issues raised by Danny and Guniiog. I'd like to hear from the candidate about this. Gwernol 01:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral There is no doubt in my mind that this editor is an excellent contributor to Wikipedia, but there's just something unsettling about the information presented above. But I do have to compliment you, Elonka- aside from your great editing, you don't look a day over 35. Brava! -- Kicking222 03:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral I'm a bit nervous about the 2nd AfD exchange with Danny, and I really am not one to comment about editing an article about yourself (don't ask), but not enough to oppose. I think my neutral is more fence-sitting and being interested in the proceedings than anything. If you do end up getting the mop, though, I wish you well. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 04:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral This is a bit too long ago to actively oppose, but I found her accusations against User:Piotrus during the "Polish cabal" debate mostly outside of WP:AGF. I also don't like the mischaracterization that "an admin [Piotrus] had been asked to resign" when it was in fact Elonka herself who asked him to resign. ~ trialsanderrors 08:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral pending answers to questions 5 and 6 above. --A. B. 11:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC) Questions answered, it's time to get off the fence: "Support" --A. B. 17:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Observation - with 2k edits, I'm one of the lower volume editors participating in this RfA -- most of the commenters are very experienced and many are already admins. It's a bit depressing to see so much squabbling among experienced editors, some of it seeming to be driven by old disputes that are only marginally related to Elonka, the candidate. I've given up trying to comprehend the different fault lines. --A. B. 03:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral. Elonka's robust attitude towards User:Piotrus's activities is commendable, but I wince at her facile approach to blocking established wikipedians. --Ghirla -трёп- 11:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral Slightly uncomfortable about supporting. However, Elonka is a fantastic user, and I see no standout reason for opposing. Like Kylu, I'll just observe, and wish you luck if you do get the tools. riana_dzasta 15:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutral Most of the WP:AUTO violations were from fairly long ago, so I'm uncomfortable opposing for those reasons. On the other hand, my natural RfA conservatism steers me clear of a candidate who has a series of controversial actions in her past. I have no firm position here. Xoloz 16:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Neutral per the above I am a bit concerned, will move into one of the camps above upon newer answers Glen 19:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Neutral. In the past (May-July '06), I have been involved in disputes with Elonka (as she mentioned above). While it left me with mixed feelings, in retrospective I cannot find sufficient reasons to oppose granting her the 'mop'n'bucket' oh-so-powerful powers :) However since I have not interacted much with Elonka in the past few months, I don't feel I have sufficient knowledge to endorse her candidature. Therefore I feel that the best I can do is to indicate I am neutral and wish her 'good luck'. It is possible that her answers to question by other editors may change my opinion on that (for the better, I'd expect). One way or another, good luck.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral awaiting answers to questions 5-8.-- danntm T C 01:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC) Switching to oppose, see above.-- danntm T C 15:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Neutral. I have carried out a fairly extensive check and am thoroughly conflicted. There's an outside possibility that I will change my position after reflection or based on developments on this page. - BanyanTree 01:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Neutral—Any editor whose parents are included and whose mother's talk page includes a quote by Jimbo is noteworthy: "Nanusia, if you used a "family tree" and "interviews" to write the article, that is original research. Every fact in the article needs to be cited to a reliable source.--Jimbo Wales 19:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)" (from Talk:Elsie Ivancich Dunin) An intuitive sense of discomfort requires more research—I'll be back tommorrow night to read further... Williamborg (Bill) 04:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Neutral, as I agree with Bishonen's closing remarks above. Olessi 19:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Neutral. Not happy with the way Q3 was answered. --Lysytalk 20:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Neutral. Got some reading to do here o figure this out, clearly. --Calton | Talk 22:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Neutral. I have changed my oppose to a neutral, my second change, in the light of further reflection and review of Elonka's contributions. Just yesterday she edited to add an uncategorised tag to an article I had written. I found it useful, and, as a bit of a wikignome myself I value this sort of contribution, which I know she does a lot of. I think she has learned from her misunderstanding of WP:AUTO earlier in her career and will not make this mistake again. I'm still not going to support as I think she should have given a better and less defensive account of her dealings in the Dreamguy incident, but if this RfA fails I will support her after another couple of months of conflict-free editing shows real dedication to civility and collegiality. Her willingness to sign up for recall should also perhaps reassure us. --Guinnog 00:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Neutral. Regretfully changed from support due to issues raised above regarding FAs. I cannot, in good conscious, remain faithful to WP:BULL and still support this candidate. Hopefully next time I can whole heartedly.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 19:08, 24 October 2006 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Elonka&oldid=1146585202"