Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 3

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Elonka

Closed as successful by Rdsmith4 on 01:21, December 14, 2007 (UTC) at (176/61/5)

Elonka (talk · contribs) - Ladies and gentlemen, I now offer you my tenth candidate for adminship, Elonka.

To start with, this is Elonka’s third request for adminship. Her first request, which took place in October 2006, didn’t reach consensus, and ended at a final tally of 86/47/18; Elonka’s second nomination did not reach consensus either, but ended at a high tally of 158/72/5. That RfA happened in late-July of 2007, so there has been a good space of time between each of her nominations.

Elonka Dunin has been a contributor to Wikipedia ever since September 2005.[1] Since the time she joined, she has amassed some 37,000 edits, over 26,000 of those being to the mainspace; 1459 to the Wikipedia-space, a healthy amount to images, categories, portals, and templates; and roughly 7100 to various talk page-types. However, while Elonka’s edit count is impressive, so are her editing and writing skills. Thanks to Elonka’s work and her wide range of interests, a large variety of articles have been expanded and improved by her. These range from pages such as Knights Templar, Dan Brown, Pauline Fowler, and Austin Miller, to other articles such as Shawar, Claude Beck, Damien Spinelli, Recueil des Historiens des Croisades, and Palestine Pilgrims' Text Society.

With her personality, I have observed that Elonka is good at remaining calm during rough situations, and she is always willing to discuss problems, as well as keeping civil at all times. At her last RfA, despite the stress that it generated, Elonka was polite and calm throughout the entire process, and was a good-sport at the end. She is also willing to listen to and take advice, and eager to reach out to newcomers to help them: these are more good qualities in my books.

Finally, Elonka has stated in the past that she likes the idea of the admin recall system, and plans to place herself in Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall. She also has E-mail enabled, which is handy for users who need to contact her.

I do believe that Elonka being an administrator will be a major benefit to the project, and I am honored to nominate her. Acalamari 23:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Co-nomination 1 from TimVickers

There are two requirements for a good administrator: experience and character. User:Elonka has been editing Wikipedia since September 2005; made large contributions to an eclectic mix of articles, such as Knights Templar, Dirty Dancing, and Dan Brown; and made over 26,000 mainspace edits – she is a highly experienced user who has a demonstrated an impressive commitment to the project. Her experience is unarguable.

However, character is harder to assess, and over her two years of contributions, Elonka, as she herself admits, has made some mistakes and stepped on some toes. However, looking over her contributions from the last six months I haven’t seen anything that causes me serious concern. She seems to have learned from her early mistakes and matured into a polite, hard-working and effective editor. I think Elonka will make a good administrator. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Co-nomination 2 from Alison ^❤

I am absolutely honoured and delighted to co-nominate Elonka for adminship. She's been here a long time now, has a vast amount of experience and has been a valuable and prolific contributor to the project. While I understand her previous two RfA attempts have had mixed results, so much has happened in the interim and so many of the original issues have been addressed and I believe she is now more than ready for adminship. She is patient and polite, highly knowledgeable regarding policy, shows kindness to others and is involved in diverse areas of WP. She is an asset to the project and I believe she will make an excellent administrator - Alison ^❤ 00:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Thank you for your faith in me. I humbly accept. --Elonka 00:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: I'd like to help clearing various backlogs, such as at WP:PROD, and to help ensure quick responses at WP:RFP and CAT:PER. I will also help a bit with vandal fighting. It won't be my primary activity, but if I spot an obvious vandal attacking an article, it will be helpful to have the tools so that I can deal with the situation on the spot, rather than having to go poke someone else to do it. I would also like to participate more at WP:DRV, where admin access can be helpful in seeing deleted edits. --Elonka 23:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I love to write, and am particularly proud of the articles on the Knights Templar (on the Wikipedia main page on October 13, 2007), Dirty Dancing (the 1987 film), and Fustat (Egyptian capital). Lately I've been doing a lot of reading on the Crusades, as well as pre-Islamic history and rituals, so I've been using the knowledge thus gained to expand and improve many related Wikipedia articles, such as on Mecca, Black Stone, the Hajj, and Isra and Mi'raj. I've also been expanding many articles related to the Mongol Empire. And on a completely different subject, I helped rev up Wikipedia:WikiProject Soap Operas, such as improving the guidelines there to try and get a handle on the many many soap opera articles that are currently flowing in to Wikipedia. Towards this end, I've been helping a lot at the Pauline Fowler article, which will be at Featured status someday (soon I hope!) just made FA, and can then be used as an example that other soap character articles can emulate. --Elonka 23:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: Anyone with over 35,000 edits, is pretty much guaranteed to run into the occasional conflict.  :) I'd say in the vast majority of cases where I'm involved in a conflict, I'm one of the people who helps untangle things, towards finding a compromise that everyone can live with. In the occasional case though, I may find myself butting heads with someone where we just can't seem to figure out a way to communicate effectively. The most recent case of this happening is at the article Franco-Mongol alliance, where we're working our way through the various steps of Dispute Resolution. It's probably going to take months more of patient effort before we finally come to a respected community consensus, but I'm in it for the long haul.  :) My ultimate philosophy is to stay polite, try very hard to see the other person's point of view, and try to find a reasonable compromise that keeps things in adherence with Wikipedia's core policies such as WP:NPOV and WP:V. In terms of future conflicts, I like the way that we have noticeboards on certain issues, and think that this is a good way of addressing common problems. For my own part, I've been trying to help out at WP:RSN. --Elonka 23:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Precision: Mediator Tariqabjotu actually closed down Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Franco-Mongol alliance on December 4th (2 days before Elonka wrote the answer above). The reason given for closure was: "Decision of the mediator that further discussion was improbable of producing result." PHG (talk) 20:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

4. How do you feel about Category:Wikipedian administrators open to recall?

A: Just as I've said in my previous RfA attempts, I completely support it, and will definitely add my own name to the category. I've liked the idea even before I started thinking about becoming an admin -- I think it's a classy way to handle things.

5. Since there is an article about you on Wikipedia, as well as other articles about members of your family, which you have edited, questions have been raised about your adherence to WP:COI and WP:AUTO. What is your response?

A: I did engage in some edits when I was a much newer editor, but as I became aware of the wiki-culture, this has definitively stopped. I no longer participate in the editing of articles about me or my immediate family members, and my last edit to any of those articles was well over a year ago, except for one case where I requested a speedy-deletion on an article about one of my cousins. I still feel that he's notable enough to meet WP:BIO, but that the article didn't yet have sufficient sourcing to make an exceptionally strong case. Since it put me in a bind where I couldn't edit the article (because I would be charged with COI), I simply requested that it be speedy-deleted. On another of my relatives, I agreed with deletion at the AfD, simply as a way to bring peace to the encyclopedia. There are none of my relatives that have to have articles here on Wikipedia – the information is already in multiple other places out on the web. If it's less disruptive to see articles about my relatives deleted, so be it. --Elonka 00:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

6. Re: Q4. Could you please indicate your standards for being recalled as an administrator? Just so there are no surprises later during this process. Thanks! Roadmr (t|c) 01:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

A: My standards will be pretty straightforward. If six editors in good standing post to my talkpage and ask me to step down, I will immediately resign my adminship. --Elonka 01:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

7. If somebody demanded that you provided them with a shrubbery, how would you respond? Tim Vickers (talk) 01:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

A: Well, assuming that they had a genuine need for a shrubbery, I would try to help them find one. A good one, that wasn't too expensive.  ;) --Elonka 01:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

8. Allow me to disclose something you said to me in email 4 months ago (8/1/2007): "I don't really care about the delete/block stuff, but I'll help out if needed.", which you said around the time of your last (2nd) RFA. Do you still feel this way about blocks and deletions? This is the stuff that admins do (blocking users specially which is not always an easy decision). Do you still feel this way about deletions and blocks, or do you plan to participate in this very common admin-related activity? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 02:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

A: I feel pretty much the same, yes. I don't want to be admin because I "want to delete" or "want to block". I do understand that admins are expected to help out with those activities, and I am fully willing to do that, but vandal-fighting is not a major motivator for me, as I've already done plenty of that in my own game communities. Don't get me wrong, I've definitely done some Recent Changes patrolling on Wikipedia (I've tried to participate in many different areas, to get a flavor for things), but it's never been one of my favorite tasks. Even with admin access, I fully intend to keep on with article-writing. The sysop bit will just help me to be even more effective, when I take a break to work on maintenance activities rather than article expansion. --Elonka 03:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

9. Since your account is associated with your real life identify, the biographies of living persons policy applies to others' comments about you. As an admin, how do you think this would affect your interactions with other users, if at all? (This question is completely optional.) Thanks, Gracenotes^T § 04:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

A: Actually, I don't really see WP:BLP as applying to me, the editor. I see the main gist of the policy as applying to the actual article, Elonka Dunin. Any other negative comments about me that happen in the normal course of Wikipedia communication on talkpages and whatnot, would typically fall under other normal NPA and Harassment policies. --Elonka 04:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

10 One of the concerns about you in the past has been speedying articles which did not clearly meet WP:CSD. Would you be willing to agree (as I think all admins should) either to tag an article for speedy deletion, or delete articles others have tagged, but not do both yourself? This might alleviate that concern. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

A: I would rather not agree with that. Every so often, I see an article that just has to go immediately, like I might be doing an RM move and need to delete a redirect, or I might be dealing with an attack page, or something that's listing someone's personal address/phone #. I once ran across a page like that, which was obviously posting personal information about a minor, and it was very frustrating for me that I couldn't just delete it on sight. All I could do was db-tag it, and put a big ALL CAPS message in the edit summary that it needed immediate deletion. However, what I can promise is that if I have any doubt whatsoever about whether or not an article might be a controversial speedy-deletion, I will make sure to get a second opinion. --Elonka 05:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

A: With all due respect, I think that would be excessive. Wikipedia is a busy place, and many thousands of things get deleted each day. When an admin is in full swing, they're deleting things right and left. It's just not practical to post about every single one at WP:ANB. Anyone that does want to see what I'm deleting can definitely review my deletion log. You can check any active administrator's logs, and see that this is something that they may do multiple times per day.[2][3][4] I can't promise that I'm going to notify on every deletion, but I do promise that if I feel that something is a particularly controversial deletion, I will get a second opinion and/or post about it at the Noticeboard. And if anyone has questions about anything I have deleted, they are of course welcome to ask me directly about it, or take it to WP:DRV. --Elonka 20:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

11. Hey, I was just reading opposition #5 - that would not appear to make sense instantly, but there is truth to it; What if Wikipedia loses its appeal [to you] because everytime you log in it feels like work and that you have to do it (contribute), rather than at your own free will as before, as it is with many hobbies that are taken on professionally? Those who register at internet forums and recieve a position on the staff board are known to display a decline in activity or lack of will, due to logging in becoming nothing short of an inconsequential chore in life. I guess the real question is, Are you sure? I have only just seen you and I think you are an impressive factor on Wikipedia (I mean, you don't seem too robotic, for one. You even have your own article!) --Dlae^{The Freudian Slip} 14:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

A: It's a fair question, and I gave this a lot of thought. Especially in my position as a professional online community manager, I've spent a lot of time analyzing trends of online usage. For example, in MMO games, no matter how cool they are, and no matter how passionate that a particular player is at the start, there's still a general burnout cycle. A typical MMO player will play a game for 6-18 months, and then they'll move on. But I have to emphasize the word "typical." Some people will play less, some will play more. Some move on from "playing" a game, to just the social aspects – the community becomes more important than the game. Some even play for decades (I know of multiple examples of generational participation, as some people play a game, meet and marry someone that also plays the game, then they have children, and when those children are old enough, they start playing the game). I think there are many Wikipedia editors who do see WP as a kind of game (see WP:MMORPG), and then when the novelty wears off and it's not as "fun," they move on. But to answer your question, no, I don't see Wikipedia as just some casual entertainment. I see it as an amazing and worthwhile project which will have impact, generations from now. And if it helps set your mind at ease, I've been a high-level sysop in my own game communities for going on 20 years, and haven't burned out. I've visited some other online communities on the web, and participated briefly and then moved on. With those, I was a tourist, not a settler. But for Wikipedia, by going for adminship, I'm making a commitment. I'm here for the long haul. :) --Elonka 18:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

12. I'm curious as to which part of the WP:MOSDAB guideline suggests (or, did suggest) that we remove mention of Nitrogen from N [5], Macy's (and its infamous one-letter stock exchange symbol) and the McDonald's logo from M [6] [7], and Phosphorus from P [8]. I realize the editorial matter itself isn't directly related to admin tasks, but the ability to interpret policies and guidelines in a reasonable way (regardless of what they actually say at any given time) is important. — CharlotteWebb 19:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

A: I of course support the policy, and agree with the concept that we are here to provide an information source, which may occasionally result in providing information which some users might find offensive. However, I don't see WP:CENSOR as a trump card that overrides good judgment. I still feel that reasonable determinations can be made on the relevance of particular material, especially as how it relates to other of Wikipedia's policies, such as WP:UNDUE. So I fully support the concept of editors involved with a subject, engaging in good faith discussions towards finding a compromise position on the inclusion, exclusion, or modification of images for that article. In the specific case that you're talking about, at Talk:Kaaba, it was, and still is, a very controversial issue on whether or not to include an image of Muhammad, at the article about Islam's holiest shrine, the Kaaba. Though the image is one that seems completely innocuous to Western eyes, to many Muslims – even moderate and open-minded Muslims – it's extremely shocking and offensive. It is jarring to them to go to an article about the holiest place in Islam, and see something that they find profane. I felt that it was worthwhile trying to seek a compromise on the issue, under the principle that though the image does add information to the article, it's not an essential image to that particular topic, and may be giving undue weight to a story about its history. I still support linking to the Commons and other articles where the image is more appropriate, but at Kaaba, I weigh the balance of providing the information, against that of the fact that the image is starkly in opposition to the traditions around that particular subject. In the July 2007 discussion, I offered multiple compromises, but multiple other editors disagreed and said that they felt that the image was appropriate, so I opted to bow to the consensus,[9] as a way of bringing the issue to a resolution. If the situation is re-opened for community discussion in the future, I will handle it the same way, offering my opinions, listening to other editors, suggesting possible compromises, and ultimately, doing my best to acknowledge and support the consensus of the good faith editors at that time. --Elonka 21:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

17. Hi Elonka, there is some question about an email you sent a user?? See talk page. I think the issue is a non-issue and is out of control but anyways. --Tom 20:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

General comments

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

RfAs for this user:

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

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

---

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

Discussion

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

Support

1. I strongly support this nomination, being the nominator. Finally, I am first to support a candidate that I've nominated. :) Acalamari 00:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
2. Strong support. My support of this RfA will probably surprise no one as I nominated Elonka last time round. I was disappointed that it was unsuccessful as I believe Elonka has a lot to offer the Wikipedia community. She is a long term editor who despite some early mistakes and a lot of adversity has persevered in contributing here. She has contributed a wealth of high standard content in her time on the project. Elonka has also had interactions with a number of difficult users, with who she engages politely but firmly, and has been of great assistance on troublesome BLP articles including those where the subject has become angrily involved. I think it is regretable that editors who have been around for a long time and have become well known to the community sometimes suffer at RfA compared to newer editors who have had less time to rub people the wrong way. I cannot see Elonka becoming an administrator harming the project, on the contrary I think having this talented contributor with the extra tools will be of great benefit to us. Elonka has shown herself willing to learn from past mistakes, willing to hear the concerns of other users, and utterly committed to the project. She is in my opinion highly suited to adminship. WjBscribe 00:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
3. Co-nom Support - absolutely :) - Alison ^❤ 00:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
4. Support. Excellent candidate. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
5. Support long overdue This is a Secret ^account 00:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
6. Support. This editor has improved substantially since I opposed her first RfA. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 01:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
7. Support I supported last time and I see no reason to change this time. Captain panda 01:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
8. Strong support; she's a fine editor, and will be an excellent admininstrator :) Redrocketboy 01:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
9. Support a long time contributor, that has learned from past mistakes and has applied the feedback received in previous RFAs in a constructive manner. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
10. Support. I had reservations during Elonka's last RfA, as I was not familiar with her personally, and a lot of prominent editors were bringing up concerns. However, I have dealt personally with her in the months since - and have seen firsthand how much of a polite and friendly editor she is, and how she is willing to tackle difficult subjects with politeness and decorum. She's contributed reams of information to the project, and has always responded positively to constructive criticism. Elonka's work has been a boon to this project, and her dedication and judgment will be of great benefit to the administrative team. --krimpet⟲ 01:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
11. Support, it is high time to give this dedicated editor the mop. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 01:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
12. Strong support -- I wish I could find the diff ... I was trying to informally mediate between 2 normally good faith editors who had disagreed to the point of one of them inappropriately slapping a vandal tag on the other. I didn't get very far so I asked Elonka, who had edited some of the same articles, to see if she could help. She stepped in and graciously got them all straightened out. I won't say they were singing "Kumbaya" together when she was done, but it was pretty close. I was impressed by her diplomacy and peacemaking skills. --A. B. ^(talk) 01:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
13. Support as before. She could have started a new account and become an admin six months ago. Instead she took the honest way out. Let's not make honesty into something punishable. --JayHenry (talk) 02:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
14. Support as always. Elonka is beyond qualified to be an admin. - auburnpilot talk 03:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
15. Support It is time to give her the mop. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 03:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
16. Support as always. Nick (talk) 03:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
17. Yes NHRHS2010 talk 03:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
18. Strong Support. An excellent candidate. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 03:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
19. Strong support She has excellent common sense with regards to decision making, and really works for articles and sources with regards to verifiability rather than allowing articles to be overrun by those who are excellent debaters that try and pass bad material and sources. Sometimes those who attempt this understand nothing but a firm hand after all attempts at talking things out. We really need an advocate like her as an admin to help in preserving honest scholarly work. Monsieurdl (talk) 03:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
20. Support. Great mainspace work. Jack?! 03:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
21. Strong Support - If you want to fail an RfA by just saying that nothing has changed since the prior RfA, then you are definitely not looking closely at the editors contributions..make sense of your opposes before opposing...since this candidate really deserves those extra couple of buttons...--Cometstyles 03:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
22. Support. It is a pleasure to work with Elonka. Her responses are accurate and eloquent, and she clearly knows the policies and can apply them with great prudence. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 03:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
23. Absolutely Great answers by Elonka above and excellent introductions by the Nominator & Co-noms, I find Elonka to be a bright, kind trustworthy editor, who I strongly believe wouldn't abuse adminship if given the tools.▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡^Talk 04:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
24. Strong support. She's an editor with a wide breadth of interests and the ability to make bold decisions in difficult circumstances; I've been especially impressed with her recent patience with mentoring a difficult new editor. To add to what WjBscribe said above, it often appears that editors who "play it safe" get adminship relatively easily. This is not the case with Elonka, and I think that in her previous RFAs she has been unfairly marked down for past involvement in handling controversial topics and editors, where it's impossible to please everyone and very easy to make enemies who'll turn up at the RFA in sufficient numbers to poison it. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 04:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
25. This is an editor who stands out as among the most active editors on the project. And since her last RfA, after a quick glance of her contributions, it is obvious she has made great improvement. Strong support. Maser ^(Talk!) 04:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

26. Support, slipping in unnoticed at number 27. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
27. support I have no fear that this editor will misuse the tools, and every confidence that giving her the tools will be a Very Good Thing for wikipedia. FWIW, I opposed her first RfA, don't seem to have expressed an opinion on her second. I've since interacted with her a bit via things like Stanley_Dunin AfD (where I disagree with her) and topics related to the Franco-Mongol alliance bruhaha (where I was & remain deeply impressed by her work and comportment). I give my strong & enthusiastic endorsement. Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
28. Support. I don't see any recent issues with civility, and overall she is eminently qualified and should make a fine admin. Crum375 (talk) 05:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
29. Per Alison. --D_arkF_alls ^talk 05:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
30. Strong Support This is almost a "She's not?". Answer to #10 is more thoughtful than the question. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
31. Seriously she isn't one already? ~Sasha Callahan _(Talk) 05:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
32. I don't see any good reason not to, and I'm ready to trust WJBscribe and Alison on this. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
33. Support like last time. Húsönd 05:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
34. bibliomaniac15 05:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
35. Support a good candidate --Stephen 05:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
36. Support Good answers to questions. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 06:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
37. Support per nominators and her first rate work as an editor. PeaceNT (talk) 06:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
38. Another candidate that genuinely triggered the "weren't they already an admin" thought in my mind. Support. Spebi 06:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
39. Support She is a great contributor to wikipedia and personally i think she corrected all the problems from her first RFA in her second one itself. She should have got adminship at that time.--WriterListener (talk) 06:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
40. Support The more admins who are writers the better. That's what we're all here for. Nick mallory (talk) 07:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
41. Support; the answer to Q10 alone is sufficient to allay any concerns I might have had about her rocky past. — Coren ^(talk) 08:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC) Edited to clarify 08:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
42. The work looks fine and a number of the comments made seem pertinent to me. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
43. Support per last time I've still nothing more to add that has not been said by the nom. or above. Pedro :  Chat  08:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
44. Strong support. @pple complain 09:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
45. Kusma (talk) 09:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
46. ➔ REDVEЯS likes kittens... and you 10:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
47. Absolutely without question. SQL^{Query me!} 10:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
48. Yeah! — Rudget _speak.work 10:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
49. This will be the first time I have given support to an admin candidate. This is a joyous occassion for all. —Preceding comment added by • (The Freudian Slip) 13:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
50. Support - Capable, and experienced. Modernist (talk) 14:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
51. At the last RfA I opposed this editor. However, I have reviewed her recent interactions with other users and now find no reason to oppose. I find her posts to talk pages to be kind, professional and firm. To date, most of the opposes and neutrals are expressing soft opposition or weak neutrality which suggests that much has improved. There is little downside to this nomination so I am happy to support. - JodyB _talk 15:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
52. Support—Oh well, if Tim Vickers has co-nominated, the candidate must be good. But why does she want to become a (clerical) worker ant if she can write? With a few notable exceptions, WPians contribute either as good editors/writers/intellectuals or as mop-and-bucket people. PS Hint: Don't respond to the opposes. Tony (talk) 15:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
53. I think Elonka's been ready for this role for quite a long time. She is courteous and pleasant both on and off-wiki, through thick and thin. She's certainly been around long enough to "get it", she cares genuinely about the project, and - well, really, no concerns here. Absolutely delighted to see this one going nicely, it's about time. ~ Riana ⁂ 15:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
54. Support - good user. If even Matt57 is not opposing for her conduct, I don't see why anyone else should. Will ^(talk) 15:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

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

55. Support Elonka has responded to criticism and demonstrated her integrity. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 15:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
56. Support. Competence, experience and willingness to do the work are a good combination. --Bradeos Graphon (talk) 16:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
57. Agree that the issues raised in the last RfA have been addressed and cleared. She won't misuse the tools and that's all that matters. I dorftrottel I talk I 16:11, December 7, 2007
58. Support Good editor Mbisanz (talk) 16:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
59. Absolutely. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 16:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
60. Strong, Strong Support - Once again, I'm astounded that Elonka hasn't been made an administrator yet. The arguments for opposing her RfAs are, in my opinion, trivial at best. She is a pleasure! SergeantBolt (talk) 17:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
61. Support Lots of the issues brought up in previous RfA's I don't see today. She is cordial and works through the process. spryde | talk 17:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
62. Support. Committed and talented editor. A review of her answers and contributions does not raise any red flags for me. Seems to me that she's taken the criticism from previous RfAs to heart.--Kubigula (talk) 17:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
63. Support - Gee, I thought you were an admin already. Thoroughly trustworthy. Jeffpw (talk) 17:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
64. Support - on balance, I think this would be a net gain for the project. Elonka demonstrates self-possession, and I think she is aware that her use of tools will be scrutinized, so she is unlikely to use them in a controversial way. Please be careful and conservative. - Jehochman ^Talk 17:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
65. Support Good answers, good contributions, all my interations have been positive. Mr.Z-man 18:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
66. Support. I still think Elonka is too eager to be an admin. However, unlike her last RfA, I don't see as much heated discussion and the votes are stacked pretty high on one side of the fence; so perhaps she's worked out most of the issues that surfaced on the last 2 RfAs, and the community is no longer so divided re: her being an admin. Certainly my perusal of her interactions and contributions didn't turn up any red flags. Besides, and also quite unlike last time, she's open to recall without any reservations (and Elonka, I'll hold you to your promise there). So this time I'm supporting her. Best of lucks! Roadmr (t|c) 18:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
67. Support. I think Elonka should be an admin. I pretty much know when a regular user should become a sysop or bureacrat.--~Barkjon- talk 19:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
68. Support. I have run into Elonka on a number of articles and believe she would be a good administrator. I know that she has been willing to step into stressful article debates where people are editing against policy, and try to sort things out. My only advice would be that not all battles need to be fought to the end; sometimes you just have to put in your two cents' worth and let events take their course. EdJohnston (talk) 20:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
69. Support.Biophys (talk) 20:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
70. Support -Yamanbaiia (talk) 20:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
71. Support. Elonka is obviously committed to the project; she has addressed the concerns people expressed on previous RFAs and improved. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
72. Support Excellent, experienced and professional user. --MoRsE (talk) 21:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
73. Support. It's at times like these where we have to ask, are Wikipedians truly able to forgive and forget for past grievances, or will they be like elephants and hold grudges and punish forever? I know I won't; hopefully everyone else will feel the same. Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 22:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
74. Support I met Elonka thanks to her talk about WP at Dragon Con 2007, and if I have a complex question about policy or procedure, chances are she'll have an insightful answer. I am absolutely certain that Elonka will not abuse the tools, and I know that she loves WP just as much as anyone here, even if it doesn't love her back. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 22:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
75. Support Sneaking in as an insignificant number 70-something. I'd watchlisted the most likely page for her next RFA, as she seems to me to have the "stuff" to be an admin...more so than even some of the admins I know...so I've been waiting to weigh in. I actually had never interacted with her until after her two previous RFAs, and didn't realize that she wasn't an admin until it came up in conversation. She just exudes the knowledge and authority of an admin (which shouldn't be mistaken for arrogance or entitlement, as some might seem to imply or infer). LaMenta3 (talk) 22:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
76. Support Kwsn (Ni!) 22:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
77. Like the last RfA, I don't see any reason to think that Elonka won't be a help to us all with the extra buttons. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
78. Support: I voted against Elonka in two of the previous RfA's, but I am switching to support here. Any concerns I may have had have been removed, and I believe she would be a capable admin, able to stand her ground firmly against people who do not have the best interests of the encyclopedia at heart. Good luck. Danny (talk) 22:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
79. Strong support. I thought she was clearly ready for adminship the last time, and I can't imagine anything has changed for the worse since then. Grandmasterka 22:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
80. Support: experienced and has learned a lot in her time here. Would be a valuable admin. David D. (Talk) 23:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
81. Support - not insane, a credit to Wikipedia in public and will do just fine - David Gerard (talk) 23:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
82. Extreme passive-aggressive salamander support, to the max, Quebec style. And that's all that needs to be said. Philwelch (talk) 23:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
83. Support Will do good.--Sunderland06 00:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
84. Support. This time will do fine. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 00:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
85. Support. An obviously hard-working, dedicated editor. Being an admin is no big deal, so why make it a big deal? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)--Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
86. Obvious support—great user. — Deckiller 01:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
87. Support. Elonka has been working continuously to improve multiple articles despite past RfA's that were not successful. Many people would have quit in disgust. I beleive that she is genuinely concerned with improving wikipedia. Bad Monk3y (talk) 02:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
88. Definite net benefit for her to have a mop Baccyak4H (Yak!) 04:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
89. Support Opposition duly noted, but I still think the project benefits if Elonka has the tools. Nishkid64 (talk) 04:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
90. AGF. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 05:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
91. Support - I trust her with the tools. Lara❤Love 06:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
92. Support. What interactions I had with her were productive, and the oppose reasons below are unconvincing. Sandstein (talk) 08:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
93. Support Tim! (talk) 09:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
94. Support -- Aminz (talk) 09:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
95. Support great user--Phoenix-wiki ^{(talk · contribs)} 11:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
96. Support. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 12:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
97. Happy to support (again). Deb (talk) 13:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
98. Support as per Sam Blacketer #72. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
99. Support. Elonka is thoughtful and careful, I fully trust her with the administrator toolbox. Haukur (talk) 18:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
100. Support for the same reason as last time. Sean William @ 18:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
101. Support - Garion96 (talk) 20:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
102. Support a good user I've seen around. Dfrg_msc 22:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
103. Support - as with last time. I believe Elonka is an excellent editor and very thoughtful in her responses. To answer the opposers, if this passes I doubt very much that she'll be the worst admin we have. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
104. Support - a steadfast contributor to the encyclopedia who I'm sure will do just fine as a sysop. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 00:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
105. Support - a good candidate who would make a fine admin.Bless sins (talk) 02:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
106. Support I have been very impressed with Elonka's replies to the comments and questions in this RFA. She is obviously confident, civil, and knowledgeable. She will do well with a mop. JERRY ^talk _contribs 05:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
107. Support. I've seen her work around, and always felt that she exhibited solid reasoning. Unschool (talk) 07:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
108. Support as last time. Though I have the highest respect for several of the editors in opposition, I cannot find in Elonka's past lapses anything more than normal human frailty. Yes, she errs occasionally, and is sometimes passionate regarding issues important to her, but that doesn't persuade me that she will misuse or abuse the tools. In general, she seems kind and open to discussion; together with her long experience here as an indication of competence, I'm not sure what more could be asked of her. Having said that, I am sure her admin logs will be examined with due diligence by those concerned with her conduct. Adminship is a responsibility, not a decoration. If she behaves as her opposers fear she might, her recall would be swift and just. She knows this, and I expect will always employ the mop with care. Xoloz (talk) 11:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
109. Strong support for general common sense, grace under constant pressure and being highly unlikely to abuse the tools. In regards to the two opposes where I was mentioned, I was involved with both Matt57 and Mindraker's disruption of the Dunin articles (several times each unfortunately). I am unsurprised by their continued rancor and would highly suggest that their comments be taken with a large grain of salt. I would be happy to provide quick background/summary with diffs for anyone interested. Shell ^babelfish 12:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
110. Strong support she's smart and trustworthy, and that's what counts. KDerrida (talk) 12:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
111. Support per Tim! - Darwinek (talk) 12:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
112. Support - I actually had a run in with Elonka regarding the ethnicity on her father's article way way way back. I could easily hold a grudge and vote oppose but this editor is clearly deadicated to this project. I know if I ever decided to run for admin I would have more than a few folks oppose me based on differences of opinion and not about my deadication to this project. Are there some differences amoung us? Oh course, but enough is enough. Best of luck Elonka! --Tom 14:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
113. Support - excellent contributor and good quality answers. enjoyed working with her to bring Fustat up to Good article status. ITAQALLAH 15:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
114. Support - I read through some of the Kaaba diffs that the opposers provided. It seems to me that Elonka was doing an appropriate and civil job of explaining her position (as well as the feelings of those outside the WP community) and offering suggestions without engaging in an edit war. Regardless of whether one agrees with her, I can't see anything damning to an RFA. Matchups (talk) 15:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
115. Support So pissed off at Elonka for not telling me she was running for RFA so I could support... Anyone who's seen her Simutronics work would realize she'd be an ideal admin candidate.⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 15:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
116. Support. Some possible doubts arising from a few sources, but outweighed by overall good, effective and intelligent editing - and willingness to be recalled. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 19:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
117. Support. Dreadstar † 22:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
118. Support. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 01:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
119. Strong Support. After long consideration, I strongly wanted to support her but I also read the objections. They ARE troubling because though she seems to be generally neutral and a positive editor, sometimes she seems to push a bit hard. However, she has said that she would stand for recall -- and her standards for recall are RIDICULOUSLY easy. (It should not be six, it should be at least ten editors must make that request) but with such an easy standard of recall, I believe the tools would either not be abused by this wonderful editor or if they were abused they would be quickly given up. With that analysis, I feel more than comfortable supporting. --Blue Tie (talk) 01:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
120. Strong Support - A good candidate, an active contributor and genuine supporter.--Avinesh Jose (talk) 05:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
121. Support - She is a very good editor. She will do a great job as an admin. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 14:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
122. Support. The candidate's contributions to the project are extensive and well-documented. It's clear that she can become passionate about some issues, as noted above by Blue Tie and others, and I strongly urge her to not use her tools in connection with any article or user with which she has or has had any issue of contention. With that in mind, I think the project would be well served by having this user as an admin. Best, ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
123. Support Wizardman 16:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
124. Strong support. I supported her in her 2nd RfA, and have since only seen the best contributions from her. Her opinions are often strong and sharp, but always useful and civil. She'll make a great admin. Bearian (talk) 17:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
125. Support. Elonka has demonstrated a knack for working with difficult users and remaining calm, even in the face of vicious and personal attacks. She is also a tireless editor who demonstrates full understanding of policies. Horologium (talk) 18:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
126. Support. Most of the reasons I support Elonka have already been stated above, so I won't bother repeating them. I would like to just note, however, that with someone as active as Elonka, she's bound to rub a number of people the wrong way even if she acts as a perfect Wikipedian. I think this was a big factor against her in her last nomination, as a lot of people who disagreed with her came out of the woodwork to oppose her on that basis alone. It's truly unfortunate that this quirk of the voting process has kept such a good potential admin from us for so long. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
127. Support - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 23:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
128. Support I have nothing but high regard for Elonka, her talents and her work. Please don't make me come to regret this--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 00:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
129. Support - She's dedicated to Wikipedia, maybe even addicted. If she wants to spend some of her seemingly endless energy on mop duties, I say we should let her. The Transhumanist 01:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
130. Support as per nom - Sure, this editor has has some problems, but fortunately, most of her problems are with the right people. She is rather excellent - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
131. Support. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
132. Support - I was impressed by a few things I saw. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 06:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
133. Support - I've known Elonka for quite a while, and believe her to be fair and reputable. --Randal L. Schwartz (talk) 07:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
134. Support: As I mentioned last time out, I have had contact with Elonka in a previous admin role, and never knew her to be less than reasoned and able.  RGTraynor  11:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
135. Support: Moving from Neutral. I can't say that all my fears are allayed, except that the community is well aware of the issues surrounding this candidate, and that means that the status change won't significantly grant license. Furthermore, I'm really aggravated that we keep promoting candidates with 30 votes and little scrutiny. The double standard is too much for me. Geogre (talk) 12:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
136. Support - Good answers to the questions, I do not believe this editor would abuse the tools. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
137. Support Lawrence Cohen 16:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
138. Support per statement I made in her last RfA. Jonathunder (talk) 18:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
139. Support - Statement made at last RFA. Still no real reasons to oppose or be neutral so I support. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
140. Support. I've looked at this pretty thoroughly, and everything I've seen indicates to me that she'd be a fine admin. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 22:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
141. Support --- tqbf 22:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
142. Support There's certainly some valid concerns, especially (for me) deletion issues. But she seems firmly committed to recall and there's no doubt she has heard peoples concerns loud and clear. She obviously very committed to Wikipedia. RxS (talk) 22:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
143. Support AniMate 23:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
144. Support I just struck my neutral vote based on Elonka's response and her innate suitability and in spite of any reservations re Jimbo's rfc. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
145. Support, as my experience with Elonka has always shown her to be very considerate and friendly, she obviously has the experience and on top of that remains open for recall. I'd like to add - as a word of advice to the respective editors - that several of the opposing votes reek of personal vendetta, while at the same time offering too little actual substance for me (as an uninformed bystander to these previous disputes), to have me consider otherwise. - Cyrus XIII (talk) 01:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
146. I believe that, even with concerns raised below, that Elonka being an administrator would be a benefit to the project. I do, however, hope that she consider the below concerns in the future. I (talk) 01:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
147. Support. Her placing of her name on the "subject to recall" list convinces me that it's fine for her to be an admin in spite of the concerns of my colleagues listed below. Cla68 (talk) 02:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
148. Support Overly-qualified for the mop :) Spellcast (talk) 02:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
149. Support on the basis of additional research and discussion. (switch from previous vote of neutral) --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
150. I believe Durova Elonka would make a fine admin. Ral315 (talk) 04:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

     I'm an idiot, and definitely meant Elonka. Don't know why I wrote "Durova". Sorry for the confusion. Ral315 (talk) 19:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

     Freudian slip? Cla68 (talk) 01:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

151. Support. Daniel 05:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
152. Support I think she will be an excellent admin docboat (talk) 08:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
153. No evidence she'd abuse the tools. To the contrary, upon closer look, the opponent's examples work rather for her and against her opponents, such as PHG's gratuitous AN/I notice (where PHG refused mediation for no apparent reason) or Radiant's example of her being thorough. Since when is beeing thorough a bad trait for an admin? — Sebastian 08:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

     Comment Just because I didn't ask for sanctions to be taken against Elonka's behaviour doesn't mean that my ANI post was "gratuitous" (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive305#Editorial and procedural abuses by User:Elonka). Quite the contrary: after several weeks of being slandered by Elonka on various Talk Pages and ANI, and after being rescued by some great contributors in the end, I decided to leave a statement about Elonka's harassment techniques, without returning the agression ("punish her" kind of stuff). And we did go to mediation. I just don't think the kind of behaviour described is appropriate for a Wikipedia Administrator. I also learnt through this page that at one point Elonka was blocked indefinitely for harassment... quite something. PHG (talk) 19:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

     You could also have learned from this page that the blocking admin, David Gerard accepted that the block was in error and is supporting this RfA - see support #81. WjBscribe 19:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

     The problem was that it wasn't just a block but a permanent ban, which of course was improper. Once David Gerard screwed up and went above his authority to impose an immediate permanent ban, Elonka and others have gone about trying to claim that no block at all should have happened, which was certainly not the consensus of admins discussing the issue at the time, but since she had already been blocked for a day by that time those who had wanted her blocked thought she'd get the message. Apparently not, as she has never accepted any responsibility for her bad actions... to this day she insists she was perfectly justified in her harassment. DreamGuy (talk) 20:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

     The only harassment I see is yours of Elonka here. You've said your bit many many times. We get it - you don't like Elonka. That's lovely. Now move on... WjBscribe 20:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

     David Gerard also commented about it here, and I should also note that the block took place back in January 2006, which was a very long time ago by Wikipedia standards. Acalamari 20:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

     The bottomline is that Elonka harassed other contributors in the past (inspite of the fact that a "Permanent ban" may have been recognized as too strong of a sanction), and she still harasses other contributors today (my post above). She makes you feel like Michael Douglas having to prove his good faith against Demi Moore in the movie Disclosure. PHG (talk) 06:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

154. Support. Well said, Sebastian. <<-armon->> (talk) 08:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
155. Support. Never had any personal problems with her. It's time to give this woman her due ... if there are any issues, I can't imagine she'd use the tools in anything less than the most conscientious way, not after having two RfAs fail over lingering conerns about them. Certainly cannot deny that she knows policy. As for past POV issues, people with more checkered pasts have become admins and have served in that capacity with no less than the highest distinction possible. Given her higher public profile than the average Wikipedian, and that she edits under her real name, she has a strong reason to wield the mop in only the best possible ways. Daniel Case (talk) 18:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

     Her "high profile" never stopped her from abusive actions in the past, so how is that support for the idea that it would in the future? To the contrary, her alleged high profile seems to have made her think that her decisions are largely unquestionable. I would also note that her high profile consists of giving public speeches about how to treat Wikipedia as a chance to use game strategy for social interaction to get one's own way. It seems to me that that stance is one that is against the whole concept of making a quality encyclopedia. DreamGuy (talk) 20:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

     See # 159 below. Daniel Case (talk) 15:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

156. Support. Anthøny 20:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
157. Support--Matilda ^talk 21:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
158. Strong Support For as long as I have edited beside Elonka she has only been concerned with what she thinks will be the best to help wikipedia. Yes, she has been involved in many debates, and even a few arbitrations but she has abided by those rulings. She is a great editor who will do the best she can for wikipedia, and isn't that what we need from our admins? EnsRedShirt (talk) 03:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
159. support I'm concerned about the time between RfAs, but Elonka avoided Dreamguy's RfC RfAr her perceived harassment of DG was a common thread in her previous RfA. Here's some faith and recognising learning from past experience. Gnangarra 04:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
160. Support --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 04:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
161. Strong support. Another case where I cannot fathom why the user hasn't been given a mop yet. Sure, some bumps in the past, but the user has reformed and become one of the most productive wikipedians -- isn't that exactly what we'd want to see? Ashdog137 (talk) 05:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
162. Support Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
163. Support -- Darkspots (talk) 12:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
164. Support. I have only ever had positive interactions with this user. I see no reason not to give her administrator tools. --Deskana (talk) 13:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
165. Support. --Rettetast (talk) 15:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
166. Support. A fine user, experienced and well qualified.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 17:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
167. Support Her answers to the questions indicate she understands policy. She has come a long way from her previous RFA’s. I feel she can be trusted but it was this that helped me make my decision, I'm actually going to be a boring admin, doing the dull backlog kind of stuff. We need more "boring admins".--Sandahl 17:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
168. I support this nomination. I understand the fears of the opposers here, but since the nominee has said that she will be open to recall, and since her contributions to this encyclopedia have been of high quality, I have no reason to doubt that she will use the toos of adminship responsibly. Coemgenus 17:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
169. Support obviously highly experienced and Geogre makes a good point in this regard. Rigadoun (talk) 20:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
170. Support Knows her stuff, has been dedicated to wikipedia for a long time. In my opinion should have been elected last time but these few months will have done her good and given her time to learn and prove herself more. Englishrose (talk) 20:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
171. Support, with reservations, per my comment on my previous oppose. Mr Which^??? 22:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

     "-Switching to support, as I will most definitely not be a party to sinking a candidate against whom bad-faith canvassing is being targeted. Mr Which??? 22:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)" So basically you are not supporting Elonka, you're opposing a supposed smear campaign? This isn't a vote at all for Elonka!!!!Sethie (talk) 00:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

     A support vote in the support section is still an endorsement of Elonka. Acalamari 00:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

     I amended my vote to reflect the fact that while I support her, I have some reservations. My oppose was a weak one, and thus easily swayed, both by Elonka's eventual firm denial in the discussion of my "neutral", and even moreso due to the blatant canvassing attempted by her opponents. As I said, I won't be a party -- even tangentially -- to that kind of bullshit. Mr Which^??? 00:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

172. Support I like the answers, especialy 10. Speedy is an important issue for me, well answered. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
173. Support. Good answers to questions, and she's obviously dedicated to Wikipedia. I haven't seen any recent diffs that display incivility or WP:COI problems; that's been over for a year now. --Fang Aili ^talk 23:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
174. Support Tonywalton ^Talk 23:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
175. Support We need some rational analysts. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 23:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
176. SupportFerrylodge (talk) 00:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Weak oppose with regrets as I do realise this oppose is going to put me in disagreement with a number of those editors I genuinely respect. While I don't run across Elonka that often — we work in entirely different areas — every encounter I have ever had with her has left me with a nasty taste in my mouth, and a read through her contribution history does nothing to dispel the impression. Quite aside from possibly the most out-of-touch-with-policy comment I've ever seen from an established editor back in July (discussed ad nauseam in her last RFA) she seems to be the embodiment of what I think is wrong with a certain clique of editors: an obsession with "enforcing policy", despite an apparently hazy conception of what policy actually is (while it's been four months now, I still have fond memories of this rather surreal conversation); a general impression that the correct way to resolve disputes is to nit-pick and wikilawyer against anyone who doesn't agree with her until they give up out of boredom; and a repeated history of making very dubious allegations of incivility against anyone who doesn't agree with her. Couple this with her semi-permanent edit-warring (she appears to still be edit-warring as busily as ever at Franco-Mongol alliance — take a deep breath and have a stiff drink before you attempt to wade through the mess of the talkpage — although to her credit, in her answer to Q3 she has at least finally recognised that maybe she might not always be right), and her WP:IDONTLIKEIT approach to speedy deletion tagging, and you have someone I wouldn't trust with deletion buttons; not so much because she might delete things that shouldn't be deleted (we've all done that), but because I don't believe she'd ever admit she might have made a mistake and restore the content she'd deleted. All that said, given her nominators, I am willing to be convinced that she's improved; and I'd also like to take the opportunity to say that I don't agree with much of the criticism she received last time. — iridescent 00:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

   Disagreement yes, conflict, no. Like I said, somebody's character is hard to assess through text and very dependent on the circumstances of the conversation. This is a discussion where we can politely disagree. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

   • For what it's worth, I've found the other editor at Franco-Mongol alliance frustrating too. He's a strong date-warrior, and has a tendency to quote sources out of context, for points they do not support. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

   • Data point, offered from a skeptic: I took the stiff drink recommended earlier, read the entire talk page (I now know that there were Franks and Mongols and that there may have been some alliance between them, thanks!), and it seems clear that the dispute here is between PHG and Elonka, not "a diversity of editors in general" and Elonka. Edit warring might not be a fair charge. I'm uncomfortable with how Elonka reads "consensus" there though; is "3-to-1 against in a pool of 4" really a trump card in a POV dispute? --- tqbf 19:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

   Thats the irony of it all. Someone who is willing to compromise on Wikipedia policies like this as you pointed above, is still likely to get an adminship here. I'll say that says it all about the whole adminship process. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 05:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

2. Sigh. Oppose. No indication that the problems that impeded her multiple past attempts to gain adminship have been addressed. The very acceptance of this nomination is rather tactless. Why should we all be spending time on failing Elonka's RfA every few months? --Irpen 01:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

   You know it isn't mandatory to come and vote here. Redrocketboy 01:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

   Perhaps I did not make myself clear, sorry. Of course we may skip nominations. The issue is the nominations of the candidates who are viewed by the community as unfit to possess buttons. I think if editors have reasons to believe this being the case, they should come and vote. And they did. And not once. So, what changed? --Irpen 01:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

   I don't know, but I'll leave it at that, as arguing won't achieve anything I don't think. Thanks. Redrocketboy 01:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

   Maybe she changed? "viewed by the community as unfit to possess buttons" - If you haven't noticed, most of the community found her fit for the tools. --D_arkF_alls ^talk 05:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

3. Still not comfortable with her having the tools, sorry. DS (talk) 03:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

   Oppose Difficult one, but no. Too soon since the last one (4 months) and the round rejection at that point suggested the community wasn't quite willing to wear this. Some of Geogre's comments in the first neutral strike right to some of the issues I have with the candidate. There has however been improvements since attempt #2 and there haven't been any drastic flareups, and purely personally (not considering the adminship criteria) I almost felt like supporting this one because of the campaign against her by Matt57 and others. However the key issues are questions like - can they get on with others? do their actions suggest problems down the track? do they understand policy, can they understand the reasons behind the policies (often key to ensuring the spirit and not strictly the letter is enforced) and can they pick good edits from bad ones? I can't answer all of these "yes" to any degree of satisfaction, apart from the last one. Orderinchaos 03:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

   Striking my oppose. While I don't feel I can support this candidate, some of the other opposes are so plainly ridiculous that I do not wish to associate myself with them. After ascertaining for myself that the candidate is under so much scrutiny that they are unlikely to abuse the tools, I wish them good luck. Orderinchaos 09:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

   I'm sorry but the support of 158 people amounting to 69% of participants is not a "round rejection". And general consensus is that 3 or 4 months is a perfectly appropriate time between nominations. WjBscribe 03:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

4. Oppose per my reasoning in Elonka's last RFA. I think Elonka is a good and valuable editor who shouldn't be an administrator. AKAF (talk) 09:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
5. I object. As also evidenced in the previous RFA, Elonka has a history of dealing with disputes poorly. As seen in the various requests for mediation, comment, and arbitration she been subject to or participant in, she has at various times dealt with content disputes by (a) finding every single bit of "dirt" she could find on her opponent(s), and using that to disparage them (for instance here) and (b) misquoting people, or quoting people out of context, to make it seem they support her position when in fact they did nothing of the sort. Having shown this behavior in multiple unrelated instances, including after the last RFA, makes it clear to me that she is not suitable as an administrator. >Radiant< 16:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
6. Weak Oppose. Sorry, it's gone too far. Mindraker (talk) 20:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

   Can you explain please? Secret ^account 20:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

   Am I right in thinking Mindraker is referring to the other three RFA's? — Rudget _speak.work 20:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

   I'm referring to the use of Wikipedia for self-promotion, as well as the poor conflict resolution "skills" (if you can call it that). We really don't need an admin abusing power to go pushing her "Dunin nobility dynasty" pages all over Wikipedia again. The German Wikipedians had some common sense a while back and nipped that in the bud. Mindraker (talk) 20:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

   The "self-promotion" part was over a year ago, and she agreed for some of those articles about her family to be deleted, and she didn't even discuss their AFDs for a while, you have any recent difs please. Secret ^account 20:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

   On the contrary, I have logs about nonsense with putting up a page of every Tom, Dick and Harry in her family as late as 06 November 2007. Mindraker (talk) 20:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

   I'd like to look at that if I may. Could you post a diff please? Tim Vickers (talk) 21:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

   Certainly, feel free to consult my conversations/contributions between me and Shell Kinney Re: the Rodryg Dunin page for that time period. In addition, feel free to consult any conversations between me and Elonka during that time period. Mindraker (talk) 21:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

   A page which was created in 2006. To be clear, you are not saying that she was creating or editing articles on her family in 2007, but are objecting to her commenting on these articles' talk pages. Is that a correct summary of your comment? Tim Vickers (talk) 21:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

   Excuse you? On 05:43, 23 October 2007 Elonka worked on Ron Dunin, for example. Therefore, your claim that she did not work on Dunin articles in 2007 is false. [10] Please clarify your question. Mindraker (talk) 21:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

   Ah, missed that one, I see she formatted two references diff. Even with the very widest interpretation of the COI polcy, you've got to admit that's pretty innocuous. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

   For the record, I am not related to Ron Dunin. Or at least, to the best of my knowledge I am not. I have never met him, never heard family stories about him, and I have searched through literally thousands of entries in genealogical databases, and have not found any link. If anyone knows otherwise, would be interested in hearing about it. There may be some link going back several hundred years (Dunin is, after all, a Polish name), but I think it would be reaching pretty far to say that I violated COI by working on that article. --Elonka 22:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

   I'm not going to play the game of picking apart every subsequent edit that Elonka made in October 2007 about the Dunin family. Yes, many edits on Wikipedia are "small". However, as has happened before on Wikipedia, -and has happened here-, Wikipedia has been abused for the false claims of "nobility", (how much worse for self-promotion can you get?), even contrary to the laws of the country from which she claims it has been derived (namely, Poland)! Mindraker (talk) 22:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

   OK, that's fine. I wasn't really trying to pick anything apart, I was just commenting on the instance you highlighted. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

   I don't think you can discuss her conflict resolution skills as you seem to have had problems of your own in the past, and have a conflict of interest here. Stick to the facts without all of the venom. Monsieurdl (talk) 21:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

   What's the conflict here? --- tqbf 21:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

   He was directly involved in conflicts with articles directly relating to her and ones involving her, which in my mind would show a definitive conflict of interest. A simple Oppose is enough and it should stay at that. Monsieurdl (talk) 21:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

   I will cautiously propose that you are using a different definition of "conflict of interest" than many others here, and that prior disputes with Elonka qualify oppose votes. Thanks for pointing out that Mindraker had such a dispute in the past. --- tqbf 21:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

   I'm not the one running for adminship, and I -do- have suffrage to vote. :D Indeed, if I were to run for adminship, feel free to ask me all about my conflict resolution problems. However, Elonka is the one running for office. And my vote remains "as is". Mindraker (talk) 21:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

   That's fine- I didn't want the whole thing to get out of hand, tis all. Monsieurdl (talk) 21:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

   I struck the COI term and the part about skills- point taken, Mindraker. Monsieurdl (talk) 22:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

   Quite the gentleman, pardon my hot temper ;D like I said, I wouldn't be the one running for office -- ha! Mindraker (talk) 22:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

7. Oppose: I got abused by her and blocked by her friends because I was trying to clean up OR from her family articles (many of which are still unsourced and non-notable; I'm too lazy to do anything about them right now even though I can). This is as bad faith as it can get, so how can I not oppose her? I can fill up a whole page of what she did to me (example, told me stay away from her family articles, where she violated COI herself). I appreciate Tim Vicker's co-nomination (you're a good person) but Elonka is confrontational, does not compromise and generally a bad-faith user. She manages to get into severe conflicts where you wouldn't guess there could even be one. I could go back and raise all the issues in her last RfA which are still left unanswered (Kaaba etc) but they are old issues so I wont harp about them right now. But you know what, she has 35,000 edits, so people are saying "give her the mop already". I can guarantee you all she will not do much good work that other admins do. You know why I say that? 4 months ago, she said "I dont care about blocks/deletions; I mainly want the tools so I can participate in Deletion Reviews". Well, the google cache link exists there for a reason so there, she doesnt need admin access to see what a deleted article looks like. She just wants to get the title admin. If that makes her feel better well, its not a big deal especially after 35,000 edits, so alright there you go. You'll probably get it. The approval rating is currently 90% and will likely remain so. There are tonnes of reasons for her to not be admin; they are all mentioned in the last two RFAs, more specifically the last one. It will be interesting to see what kind of work she does as admin. It wont anything difficult, you can count on that (my famous last words here). --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

   A large number of admins, including some who had opposed Elonka's last RfA warned you about the campaign of harassment you pursued against Elonka. You stalked her edits and targeted articles connected her in an attempt to intimidate her because of a previous dispute. If you think its only Elonka's friends that have had issues with your conduct you're deluded. See oppose #4 in this RfA for an example close to hand that strongly suggests the contrary. WjBscribe 21:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

   Again, calling my focus on her family articles as harrassment and stalking is absolutely incorrect and in bad faith. Remember the state of the deleted Stanley Dunin? You're an admin, you can access it. OR was stripped away from it before people could see through what was going on and were finally able to see that there's not much there that makes it worthy of an encyclopedia. Stripping away OR was what I had been doing as well. Why did I get blocked and Tim did not? He's an admin, and didnt have a prior conflict with her. My actions were seen as hostile when they were obviously not. Tim did the same thing as me - why did I get blocked and he didnt? I didnt stalk her edits more than you stalk mine or anyone else's. The contributions links exist for a reason. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

   Hi Matt, I did read that last RfA and considered your comments quite carefully. I'm going to try to explain my viewpoint here, and this is more than on-Wiki, which is part of the background I alluded to in my nomination. I'm sure you remember the second Stanley Dunin AfD, where there was some bad blood between commentators and feelings were running a little high (British understatement). During that discussion I had a look at the remaining Dunin family articles and found a reference mentioning Edward Werner's role in the Polish government-in-exile during WW2. When I added this to the article Elonka e-mailed me and asked how I got the reference. I explained that my university has broad access to JSTOR and other resources. Elonka arranged to meet up with me to get other historical references on the Crusades, and we got the papers and went for a beer. All this time, despite me being one of the people most involved in arguing for the deletion of the article on her father, she did not raise the subject of the AfD once, and was polite and friendly. Character is tough to assess through text, but rather than being manipulative and confrontational, Elonka acted here in an entirely professional and constructive manner. This was probably the main reason I decided to back her RfA. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

   Matt exhibited some of the most vicious and unrepentant stalking behavior towards Elonka that I've ever seen in a Wikipedian, and I've been here nearly four years. This vote is just an extension of that vendetta, and the bureaucrat closing this RFA should definitely take this into account. Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 22:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

   (ec) As said by Kinney on his revert on Stanley Dunin, the comments that you have removed are not OR if you have bothered to read any of the references. You got blocked because you were removing verified information; Tim didn't because he was making an attempt to improve the article. I don't know what dispute you have with Elonka, but the way you conducted yourself in those articles is very rude and childish. On the point of the google cache, do you realize it usually has a very short timespan before the deleted article disappears entirely? In short, it's very inaccurate. Also, do you have any proof of Elonka being power-hungry? If not, the accusations are very spurious and hold little merit with the closing bureaucrat. --D_arkF_alls ^talk 22:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

   Hi Tim, you're a good admin in good standing, she would be have to be nice to you. I can understand your support of her RfA, you are willing to give her a chance and do believe she'll do a good job. Remembering some of her other less pleasant off-wiki activity, (and this is public information on her last RfA she provided herself, lest someone rushes to block me) she's told her about her RfA to people in her workplace who (dont have other edits, except to support her) came and supported her. And rumors are that she visits IRC chat to complain about people like me and get them blocked. So although your experience with her was pleasant, that might just be an exception. Anyway, I'm not bothered about her RfA much. She will get it and we'll see what good work she does. I'm hoping she will but I'm not expecting it. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 22:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

   Elonka has visited IRC maybe twice in the past year, and not to get anyone blocked. She just isn't that avid of an IRC user, so again, I realize you hate her and are out for her blood, but do try again, maybe this time with something that's truthful. Kisses. Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 22:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

   If I was out for her blood and stuff, I wouldnt email an admin and ask them to wipe out confidential information from her page log which a vandal had left in. Bad faith, tonnes of it, I see it all the time. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 22:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

   For Mike Halterman and DarkFalls: Ok I really dont want to restart and said all I've said in her past RfA and what I went through. I just wanted to write my oppose. If you want to know my thoughts on the Dunin articles, you can see their talk pages, my talk page and her last RfA. I have no desire in debating about anything here. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 22:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

   Yes I can see, from your background with Elonka, how that possibility would occur to you. However, as it is possible that I am wrong in my assessment of her character, it is also very probable that rumors about prominent Wikipedians are incorrect - Elonka hasn't been accused of working for the KGB yet, but anything seems possible as a rumor! :) Tim Vickers (talk) 22:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

   If you guys are going to bicker, could you please do it elsewhere? Thanks in advance. Kwsn (Ni!) 22:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

   Can I start rumors about myself too? How about, let's start a rumor that I'm having an affair with Brad Pitt. I'd like that one. :) --Elonka 22:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

   I'm afraid in the version I heard it was Tom Cruise. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

   Really? I heard it was Mr. Clooney. Hmm... Acalamari 22:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

8. Weak oppose I haven't had much personal contact, but after digging through her contribs I find that she prolly doesn't need the tools and that some of the reasoning above is sound. I don't put faith in wikistalking or in 'got a bad feeling about this' !votes, but disregarding past actions I just still see too many questionable edits, even if in good faith. David Fuchs ^(talk) 22:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
9. Oppose Looking through her history there are just far to many questionable edits to support at this time. She doesn't appear to have fixed any of the issues of the past. --Djsasso (talk) 23:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

   Any diffs to confirm these "questionable edits", and why do you think she has not fixed any of the issues from the past? Acalamari 23:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

10. Oppose per Radiant; I'm not convinced Elonka can handle conflict well. In particular, I feel Elonka was too aggressive on the recent (and perhaps ongoing?) Franco-Mongol alliance issue, as shown, in particular, by the edit war on the article in early November and by the discussion from Talk:Franco-Mongol_alliance#Concerns about Dailliez (section break 2) to the bottom of the talk page. Granted, the same might be able to be said about her opponent, but this RfA is just about Elonka. -- tariqabjotu 01:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

    (Her opponent), Elonka is a woman. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

    Oh yes, of course, I knew that; I didn't even realize I used a pronoun in there. Fixing... -- tariqabjotu 02:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

11. Oppose per the reasonings given by Iridescent. Wikipedia isn't censored. I don't like or dislike that rule, but it's a rule the community wants and admins should follow it. Monobi 03:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
12. Oppose for the same reasons as in the previous AfD--I do not think the concerns there have been addressed sufficiently. think she is a little more careful not to express her COI, but I do not credit that she will maintain that attitude once she gets adminship. I have great respect for the nominators, but I think they are being a little too trusting. The history of extreme POV --and aggressiveness about it--is still very much present in my mind. Not just that she tried to get articles in about her relatives--its a human failing--but that she pushed them over opposition as hard as she did. That made an impression on me of how not to edit WP. My views about COI were rather forgiving, until I saw to what they could lead--and she was the strongest example of this. DGG (talk) 09:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

    Thanks DGG, the respect is mutual. I know it is impossible to predict how people will behave in the future, so your opinion on this is just as valid as mine. I may indeed be too trusting, or you too sceptical. However, as a balance, consider the worst-case scenario (as we should, as good pessimists). If Elonka did use admin tools to push a POV at some point in the future, the amount of scrutiny her actions will be under will ensure that she will be rapidly recalled and the tools removed. In a way, the very strength of the opposition from some editors will act as a check and balance and protect against any future abuses. This is one administrator who will not be able to hide in obscurity! Tim Vickers (talk) 17:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

13. Oppose per DGG's rationale. Sorry. Scarian^Talk 13:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
14. Oppose per DGG & Iridescent etc. An aggressive personality almost bound to cause trouble. Johnbod (talk) 15:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
15. Oppose Although I think well of Elonka as an editor, and as much as it paints me to oppose. The aggressiveness, POV pushing etc is firmly etched into the mind. Concerns have not been fully addressed since last RfA. Sorry. Twenty Years 17:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

    May I ask what further steps you would have liked Elonka to have taken in order to address those concerns? WjBscribe 17:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

    All i ask for is a proven track record. Whilst, her work of late has been good, how am i to know that this last six months wasnt just a show for this RfA, and she will return to the old ways? Id just like to see one year of largely problem-free editing, which at this time we dont have. I also have other major concerns which i will not mention in this forum. Twenty Years 08:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

    Oppose Concerns cannot have been addressed in the '3-4 months' since the last round rejection. Unfortunately for Elonka, the community must remain cautious in this situation. By the way: If six editors in good standing post their objection now, will the closure be opposed/recalled by Elonka's own criteria for recall? cygnis insignis 23:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

    My understanding is that since recall obliges an administrator to start another RfA, and this is what we are doing now, there would be little point in them doing so. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

    Elonka says If six editors in good standing post to my talkpage and ask me to step down, I will immediately resign my adminship. in answering question 6. cygnis insignis 23:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

    Don't be petty. She's obviously talking about 6 editors rallying around a good-faith complaint about her use of the buttons. Elonka may be a lot of frustrating things, but not even Danny called her "stupid". Also, you don't help your case when you refer to Elonka RfA 2 as a "round rejection"; even those of us who worry about Elonka getting the bit know that's not what happened. --- tqbf 23:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

    Goodness! It is not petty at all. And who are you quoting? Refactor that please. Neither am I making a "case". I respect Elonka's intellect and contributions, but it is hard to take you seriously. cygnis insignis 00:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC) P.S. Desysoping is preventative, not punitive. cygnis insignis 00:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

    PPS: It's also based on evidence. Can you make a case that you didn't misrepresent RfA 2? I'll strike everything I said and apologize to you. --- tqbf 00:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

16. Reluctant Oppose Despite having supported him during his previous RfA, I feel now that while a great editor, Elonka when put under severe pressure may loose his cool, as has unfortunately happened in his protracted dispute with PHG, and this is a problem as admins are often subjected to vicious attacks.--Aldux (talk) 23:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

    If you read the nominations and the other comments on this page, you will notice that your choice of third-person singular personal pronoun is inappropriate. :) Tim Vickers (talk) 01:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

    Let's move along, TimVickers, there are more significant issues to be addressed here than one's petty linguistic errors.  :) Mindraker (talk) 11:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

    Uhmm... I don't exactly understand what you mean, Tim. If you intend me disputing with Elonka on the content issue, you're wrong; actually, I felt that Elonka was closer to the truth, or better, more cautious, than the other disputant, but he let himself carried away.--Aldux (talk) 13:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

    What Tim is actually saying is that "he" is indeed a "she" :) :) - Alison ^❤ 19:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

    Indeed. And your interpretation, Aldux, of Tim's comment is rather... er... amusing. -- tariqabjotu 20:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

    Ah! Forgive me, English is only my second language, so I do now and then these mistakes, even if I knew Elonka is a "she" (after all, she's even got an article on wikipedia):-)--Aldux (talk) 20:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

17. Oppose On one hand I have my own experience with Elonka, on the other hand I see countless other users who I have a high amount of respect for also supporting her. That, more than anything, makes me reluctant to oppose this RfA. Despite heated situations in the past, I've never thought Elonka was a bad person, or anything like that. I doubt she'd be the worst admin, or even close to it. However, I don't think she should have the tools based on how she has handled disputes. I thought long and hard about this one, and I don't want people to think it's because I hold a grudge. -- Ned Scott 05:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
18. Oppose I'm sorry, but reading through the diffs above, as well as the concerns of my fellow editors just leaves me feeling uncomfortable giving you the tools. Elonka is a great editor, and I do wish her the best. Jmlk17 05:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
19. Strong oppose Elonka is a smart editor, but she is extremely partial and intolerant of other points of view. She even resorts to corrupting sources to push her point of views. She resorts to constant personal attacks. She behaves in tyranical ways, and I really do not think that she should be given the tools of an Administrator. For some of the details: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive305#Editorial and procedural abuses by User:Elonka. For a blatant (and ongoing) corruption of the very concept of consensus to push her point of view, you can check here. Regards to all. PHG (talk) 11:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

    Do the five featured-article stars after your signature indicate that you significantly contributed to 5 articles which attained FA status? If so, why not include a description of this on your user page? If not, why are they there? JERRY ^talk _contribs 15:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

    ?? 5 FA's are indeed included at User:PHG#Created_articles. Johnbod (talk) 15:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

    Perhaps, but they are not and should not be part of PHG's signature; see WP:SIG#Images. I have removed them; they draw unnecessary attention toward PHG's comment. -- tariqabjotu 15:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

    The 5 FA stars simply describe that I created and brought five articles to FA status. Fine with removing the pictures though. Regards PHG (talk) 16:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

20. Weak oppose I like Elonka and I think she's one of the top notch Wikipedia editors; however, I also think that she was a little too aggressive on the Franco-Mongol alliance article dispute and all the other articles it spread to. A little too intolerant of other views imo.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 17:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
21. Oppose -- The last time this went around Elonka thought she'd try to get me on her side. Surely getting the individual Elonka was permanently banned for harrassing (though the ban was improper and quickly overturned) on her side would have been a feather in her cap. She made promises, acted like she'd get over her continuing harrassment (going around tagging IP addresses as socks of mine, etc., with no evidence... a move opposed by admins who undid the notices). Shortly after she lost the nomination she sent me very abusive messages (with lots of four letter words in all caps) for not supporting her to her satisfaction. She has never learned from past mistakes and always tries to blame some conspiracy of people working behind the scenes, when all it it is just people naturally opposed to her bad behavior. She's one of the last people who should get an admin spot, because she's been abusing her powers as a normal editor to promote herself and her friends with vanity articles and to harass those she has ever had any problems with (with me it was some three years ago or so and she's still pulling completely unnecessary stunts), imagine how much worse it'd be if she could just outright block people and so forth. DreamGuy (talk) 01:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

    I have been asked by email to provide evidence to back up my claims of receiving abusive messages from Elonka since her last request for adminship. I have posted one to the talk page. DreamGuy (talk) 16:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

    On which talk page? — Sebastian 08:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

    On this talk page (see "discussion" tab at top of the page). It got deleted because of privacy concerns. Elonka herself has not bothered to respond despite Durova and others asking her to clear it up. DreamGuy (talk) 16:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

    I think you may have misread Durova's comments, DreamGuy. --- tqbf 17:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

    I do not typically do more in RfAs than !vote and be done with it, but this particular !vote has mushroomed into something that I can no longer just stand by and watch. While I do consider Elonka to be a wikifriend of mine, I don't believe that I could possibly abide by what practically amounts to unsubstantiable character assassination of any editor or candidate for adminship. DreamGuy's allegations certainly made me raise my eyebrows, as his characterization of Elonka seemed the polar opposite of the Elonka I know, so I decided to look into the page logs of his and Elonka's user and talk pages. I also sifted through both editors' contributions. (I take things such as this quite seriously and spent well over an hour doing this.) While it seems that Elonka has tagged DreamGuy's page once or twice as being a suspected puppeteer, I couldn't find anything on her part that I would constitute as harassment. If I am mistaken and I missed something, please, by all means, post diffs. If anything, my examination of page and contribution logs has uncovered that DreamGuy has instigated many of the conflicts that he seems to play the victim in, not just this particular one alleged with Elonka. Elonka, along with most of the editors he has "banned" from his talk page seem to me to have made nothing but good-faith comments and other edits to DreamGuy's talk page. Sure, some of them may have been critical, but that is far from attacking or harassment. Given my research into this, it is my conclusion that these allegations be taken with a grain of salt. Again, if my personal assessment of the public logs is in error or if I missed something, anyone is more than welcome to post diffs illustrating a pattern of harassment by Elonka toward DreamGuy, and I'll reconsider my position based on that evidence. LaMenta3 (talk) 03:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

22. Oppose. I still think people editing an article on themselves is a very bad idea, so bad, that it refelects on that person for ever, but I was not going to vote this time. However, if only part of what DreamGuy claims is true, this is clearly unacceptable, as at her last request she claimed that she had patched things up. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 10:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
23. Oppose For many of the oppose reasons outlined in the last RFA. Since that time however, her conduct in the apparently tortuous Franco-Mongol alliance discussions makes me feel that not much has changed in the intervening months. If this RFA is sucessful however, I genuinely hope that Elonka proves me wrong, as she can be an excellent contributor. Her article writing is often excellent and her past colaborations to get articles to FA status are particularly impressive. I wish her well, despite my reservations about her suitability for adminship and this resulting oppose. •CHILLDOUBT• 13:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
24. Oppose per my reasons in the prior RFA. No evidence of her behaviour having been improved since then. Neıl ☎ 14:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
25. Same as before. Friday (talk) 16:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
26. Oppose: She recently asked me to look into a dispute which she claimed was centralized in one section of one talk page. When I poked further, I found myself travelling from talk page to reliable source page to ANI sub-page to other talk page, etc. Rather than stamping out fires, she pours gasoline in carefully strategized places to direct the fires where she wants them. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
27. óppose per radiant. Viridae^Talk 21:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
28. Oppose Many people above said all of this better than I could. Do I trust Elonka as a Wikipedian? Yes. But, given the POV pushing and COI abuses, do I trust her as an admin? No. -- Mike (Kicking222) 01:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
29. Oppose, per Radiant and per the merit of Mindraker's argument. -- Iterator12n ^Talk 02:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
30. Though it doesn't make me happy to do so, oppose per my comments in the previous RfA. Dekimasuよ! 02:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
31. Oppose per Radiant, JHG, and answer to question 13. TomTheHand (talk) 02:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
32. Oppose - some of the concerns expressed by those above are quite serious, in my view. Sorry. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
33. Oppose - per Radiant and evasive answer to Q14. User:Krator (t c) 10:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
34. Oppose (sorry) - per Radiant - the evidence suggests to me that adminship in this case may facilitate further situations which are disruptive rather than constructive to the building of a 'pedia. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
35. Oppose - A wheel war waiting to happen. Regardless of who started what when, drama seems to follow Elonka around, and this really does not make for a suitable admin candidate. I find a particularly odd double-standard coming from the most recent TTH RfA. This editor may be dedicated, but as plenty argued over there, adminship should not be a reward. In this case, her tendacy for melodramatic conduct does not lend itself well (American attempt at British understatement :)) to the mop and bucket. "I'm one of the people who helps untangle things" flies completely counter to this 137KB page. And this is incivility? Really?? --Action Jackson IV (talk) 18:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

    To be fair, those diffs are from over a year ago. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

    Well, to be even more fair, they're one week short of being a full year old. :) Regardless of exact carbon date - if the diffs were, for instance, WP:USEFUL keep !votes in AfDs, or reporting simple vandalism on Requests for Arbitration, I would agree that time heals such wounds. But these diffs, to me, show an unstable personality, one which can and does understand policy, but chooses not to. The Naming Conventions /evidence section is 137KB of diffs and drama, most of it brought about by Elonka's passive-aggressive behavior over a period of weeks. The fact that this whole incident is being (deliberately, one would assume) ignored by the candidate and her noms (Q3 in particular - talk about ignoring the elephant in the room) really turns my stomach. This is a preventative oppose, not a punitive one. --Action Jackson IV (talk) 05:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

36. Oppose. With respect, per answer to question 1. I feel like Elonka is trustworthy but there is enough negative feeling about her adminship that I feel reluctant to grant it to her when I feel like she doesn't really need the tools (although it might be nice for her to have them). Mangojuice^talk 18:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
37. Oppose. - per last RfA. Isarig (talk) 19:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

    Oppose, what everyone else said... Gentleness · Talk 19:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

    Comment by user confirmed by checkuser to be evading an indefblock for abusive sockpuppetry. WjBscribe 20:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

38. Oppose - I can not abide by the answer to 10.2, "When an admin is in full swing, they're deleting things right and left." If an admin is deleting things right and left, and being judge, jury, and executioner, then they are likely not being cautious and contemplative enough in their actions. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 20:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

    I think that's putting a pretty negative spin on the question answer. Someone deleting a string of broken redirects or clearing a backlog of nonsense pages along the lines of "cows are cool, he he he" can do that fairly quickly whilst still exercising due diligence. WjBscribe 20:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

39. Oppose. Too much controversy; too many serious concerns have been raised by other editors. Adminship should be no big deal, but until we have a community de-adminship procedure in place, we need to be very cautious about giving out the tools, since it's almost impossible to take them back. *** Crotalus *** 22:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

    There is such a mechanism - [Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall]. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

    .... flawed and all as it is, however - Alison ^❤ 02:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

40. Oppose. Prior RfA expressed valid concerns which are pretty recent, plus comments on Tlak make credible assertions of aggressive off-wiki behaviour. Valued contributor, but not a great choice for the mop. Guy (Help!) 22:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
41. Oppose. a lot of points up there, but I think Radiant has the best information. Elonka just doesn't seem to handle disputes well. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 00:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
42. Oppose to many people I respect don't think she is ready and offer good rationale's to oppose. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
43. Don't give her the keys. I have not often seen, on one hand, such a bitter and polarised candidature, and on another hand such determination from a candidate to avail him/herself of admin tools. I feel firstly that Elonka does not seem to have advance convincing enough arguments as to why she needs the powers, because she already does most of what she claims to want to do without them. Furthermore, I don't feel that she may be a good custodian once she has them, bearing in mind the concerns expressed above. The apparently schizophrenic behaviour which has been pointed to above, although not entirely substantiated but not completely without foundation either, indicates there could be a Mr. Hyde lurking somewhere in the background. Her history of conflicts of interest editing will remain to haunt her - these were quite witting and in defiance of all the rules which testify not only to her poor judgement but her motivations to seek aggrandisement for her and her family - while behaviour can be moderated, these two underlying traits can rarely be changed. Certainly, she may be a good editor and a valuable contributor to wiki, but I feel that's how it should stay. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
44. Strong Oppose per what Alex so aptly called the drama on the talk page and per Elonka's response to it below. You allegedly were incivil to someone via email, this individual pointed it out, and you respond by calling him/her a troll. That's not promising. --B (talk) 05:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
45. Oppose - Unfortunately, there are too many issues to allow me to not oppose, namely the COI Issue. PookeyMaster (talk) 05:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
46. Oppose - conflict of interest concerns. Addhoc (talk) 14:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

    Are you aware that this was an old problem, from more than a year ago? Our tradition is to forgive people who make mistakes and then correct themselves. Can you show an example of current COI editing? If so, I will immediately change my support vote to oppose. - Jehochman ^Talk 14:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

    Her recent inability to assume good faith by describing editors who 'voted' delete as griefers, was IMHO caused by her COI. Addhoc (talk) 14:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

47. Oppose per DGG, Iridescent, and others. --Itub (talk) 14:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
48. Oppose. Back in July I said "edit for a few months without getting into any dramas ... and there is no reason we couldn't promote". That still stands but I do not see it happening yet. --John (talk) 16:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
49. Oppose per DGG, Radiant, DreamGuy. Antelan ^talk 19:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
50. Oppose. Per above, and especially per iridescent. I've never had any run-ins with the nominee, and this would be my first RfA input. I can forgive the COI, and the number and frequency of RfA's, but I simply can't support someone who considers censorship a form of compromise. Justin ^chat 20:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
51. Oppose per Iridescent, DGG, and a lack of a clear denial of DreamGuy's claims. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
52. Oppose About twice as many voters have been attracted to Elonka's RfA as there have been to the next closest of the other 14 RfAs currently open. There are also a vastly disproportionate number of words about it, both on and off this page. All of this adds up to much strong feeling. In my view, the effective admins are not those around whom emotional storms collect. That's my principal reason for my "oppose" vote. Bielle (talk) 01:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
53. Strong oppose Elonka is dishonest. She feigns politeness on-wiki while agitating against perceived opponents through back channels. Bad things happen to editors who cross Elonka - threats, false charges, blocks and outings enacted by administrators she's called upon as she sits back and enjoys the popcorn. Should she be allowed to wield the tools, there is no doubt in my mind but that she will abuse them: she abuses the ones she already has.Proabivouac (talk) 03:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

    That is a very strong comment coming from someone who has posted right on their userpage about how ArbCom will "violate your privacy if they can" (see User:Proabivouac). From this comment, I can safely say that whatever you have predicted cannot be taken seriously as you have no confidence in the work of ArbCom, work that is even more important than just simple admin duties. In addition, your reference to "agitating against perceived opponents through back channels" is in itself agitating and a charge that can not be substantiated. Your comments as a whole hold no merit, and I for one cannot believe that you would actually say such things while engaging in the very activities you bring the hammer down on Elonka for supposedly doing or things she will do. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs} 04:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

    Huh? How exactly does disliking Arbcom invalidate his opinions on adminship? And what evidence do you have that Proabivouac is dishonest, or agitates against opponents through back channels? -Amarkov moo! 05:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

    Because ArbCom is more important than being just an admin, and it is funny how he decries privacy while at the same time championing the cause of private alleged back-channel conversations as direct evidence opposing her RfA. That to me cannot be defended- how can you oppose someone by their alleged conduct if you engage in the very same activities here? As for the second issue, I meant the agitating against perceived opponents part as evident here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monsieurdl (talk • contribs) 12:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

    It is a fact that Elonka does resort to a lot of back-channel, let's say, lobbying. She holds extensive off-Wiki discussions to try to gather support on-Wiki. I long suspected so, until one user candidly recognized it: [11]. Unfortunately, Proabivouac's claim that she "agitates against perceived opponents through back channels" is essentially true. As soon as she gets 2 even remotely favourable comments, she claims consensus in her favour [12].PHG (talk) 06:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

    What do you feel is disingenuous about my comment, PHG? Haukur (talk) 07:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

    Hi Haukur. Sorry for the contresens, I actually meant something like "candidly", I'll correct it. Best regards. PHG (talk) 07:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

    When a statement is true, it is not libel or slander, no matter how bad the statement is, Monsieurdl. Mindraker (talk) 12:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

    I never used the words libel or slander. I merely said you cannot throw around charges without substantiated evidence, and you cannot decry conduct when you engage in the very same conduct yourself, simply put. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs} 12:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

    Perhaps you should look up the definition of libel. Mindraker (talk) 12:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

    "It is a fact that Elonka does resort to a lot of back-channel, let's say, lobbying. She holds extensive off-Wiki discussions to try to gather support on-Wiki." Oh dear, even at this late hour in the vote I must confess that I know this to be true. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 00:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

54. Oppose. Seems tied to the punitive faction I'd like to see have less power and influence around here, not more. *Dan T.* (talk) 04:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

    Sincere question: What faction is this? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 15:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

    Oppose, per above, especially iridescent and Radiant. Elonka comes off as overly aggressive and unwilling to listen to others. Kafka Liz (talk) 16:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

    Sockpuppet vote - see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Aramgar. WjBscribe 00:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

    I notice that you have never participated in an RfA before and that this is only you second editor to the [[Wikipedia:]] namespace, may I ask how you became aware of this discussion? WjBscribe 17:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

    I'm a relatively new editor compared to some here, so yes, this is my first such post. I haven't felt the need to comment before because I haven't had a strong opinion on the candidates I've seen. Are new opinions and users not welcome? Kafka Liz (talk) 19:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

    Yes, new opinions and users are not welcome. --Tom 00:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

    Your opinion is welcome. How did you come across this RfA? --- tqbf 19:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

    I stumbled upon it, basically. I was reading up on the process and saw a name I recognized and had an opinion on. Kafka Liz (talk) 19:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

    Indeed, WJBscribe, you wouldn't be trying to make someone feel unwelcome now, would you? Mindraker (talk) 19:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

    It was a fair question. --- tqbf 19:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

    Motivated I would call that, not "fair". It casts doubt on the validity of someone’s vote, twice, on the opposing side of the one doing the doubting, who nominated the nominee before. --Van helsing (talk) 20:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

    Agreed - enough heckling! Johnbod (talk) 20:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

    Heckling? Is it unfair of a bureaucrat to investigate canvassing of an RfA? WjBscribe 23:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

    Move along, WJBscribe. Mindraker (talk) 23:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

    Don't be a jerk, Mindraker. WJB is doing what good 'crats should do: determine actual consensus, not simply count votes. Mr Which^??? 23:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

    WJBScribe has already clearly been shown to be biased and had had a history of heckling qualified voters see here. If that makes me a dick, then I am a dick. Mindraker (talk) 00:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

    While I agree 'crats should determine actual consensus, I think it would have been better if a 'crat that hadn't !voted here had done it. From Mindraker's perspective, it, understandably so, looks like WJB is "heckling" his and Elonka's opponents to try to get their !votes discounted. That being said, I don't agree with that viewpoint and I don't see the utility in discussing whether this is or is not "heckling"; what's done is done, and not a big deal. -- tariqabjotu 00:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

    Note that his questions were asked before the canvassing was discovered, and it is likely that the canvassing was what brought them here in the first place. Horologium (talk) 00:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

    Oppose. It is my impression that she tends to treat other editors as inferiors. I can only assume that administrative powers will aggravate this tendency. Aramgar (talk) 16:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

    Sockpuppet vote - see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Aramgar. WjBscribe 00:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

    I notice that you have never participated in an RfA before and that this is only you second editor to the [[Wikipedia:]] namespace, may I ask how you became aware of this discussion? WjBscribe 17:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

    Elonka and I have an intersection of editorial interests. I too am interested in the Mongols. Elonka is generally right on content but wrong in tone. Aramgar (talk) 17:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

55. Oppose. As others have said, a valuable contributor, but one where the project would problably be better off if she isn't an admin. I don't doubt her intentions, but she just causes, contributes to, or increases too much drama. Based on her life experience and positions, she should be much better at conflict resolution, but instead she tends to increase and/or draw conflicts. From observation of her interactions, I can only come to the conclusion that this will increase if she were to be an admin. Others have pointed out her problem behavior and some have noted it's in the past, but I don't think there has been time enough to change. People do change, but in my experience not many people do, and certainly not very quickly. Not having the tools won't keep her from being able to be a valuable contributor, in fact it will probably help in that regard, and thus Wikipedia will be better off if she remains an editor without the tools. Thus I don't mean any offense, but this is a strong oppose. - Taxman ^Talk 17:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
56. Great editor, but oppose per Radiant. Cool Hand Luke 18:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
57. Oppose. Soothing editor worries with remarks like "I'm actually going to be a boring admin, doing the dull backlog kind of stuff" is not something I find to be in agreement with your long-term preparations to become an admin. You didn’t prepare yourself like this to become a boring admin... you want the reward for your hard work, and you’re going to make sure you’re noticed for it, which is not a bad thing. Too often however, noticing you, left me with the feeling that you could consider using the extra tools to convince your discussion partners of your opinion quite bluntly, creating the thing we generally would like to avoid.... I’m also quite sure that being unresponsive and referring to WP:DNFT when people are discussing your WP:RFA, was not the best way to resolve a more difficult situation, a thing an admin will have to deal with regularly. --Van helsing (talk) 19:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
58. Oppose Admins are looked to resolve conflicts, something Elonka's history shows the exact opposite of. Last rfa did not suceede 3.5 months ago- why the rush for another? Sethie (talk) 21:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

    Actually, 3.5 months between nominations is a decent amount of time, and there is no rush: in my nomination statement I mentioned that there has been a good amount of time between RfAs. I myself ran for adminship a (successful) second time a day under three months after my first one didn't pass. Acalamari 22:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

    Oppose per my discussion in the "Neutral" section. Mr Which^??? 21:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)--Switching to support, as I will most definitely not be a party to sinking a candidate against whom bad-faith canvassing is being targeted. Mr Which^??? 22:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

    Can you please point me to what you are considering bad-faith canvassing? -- tariqabjotu 23:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

    He means this, based on this WP:BN post. --- tqbf —Preceding comment was added at 23:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

    If he is actually talking about that, I'd have to say that I'm rather disappointed that MrWhich changed his position based solely on that. That is not in any way "bad-faith canvassing" and I frown upon the statement's characterization by those at WP:BN. -- tariqabjotu 23:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

    I was, in fact, talking about exactly that. Posting a notice that an editor is standing for an RfA at an article talkpage is the definition of bad-faith canvassing, especially when there's a high likelihood that there are editors at that talkpage who will oppose simply based on content disputes. You can be "rather disappointed" and "frown upon" whatever you want. The canvassing is what it is. Mr Which^??? 23:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

    "Posting a notice that an editor is standing for an RfA at an article talkpage is the definition of bad-faith canvassing..." Not quite. See Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Elonka_3#MrWhich.27s_.21vote. -- tariqabjotu 23:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

59. Oppose Powerful arguments have been brought by both sides here. On balance, the oppose ones seem stronger at present, though maybe the situation will be different in a couple of months.--Bedivere (talk) 23:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
60. Weak oppose per Taxman. Epbr123 (talk) 00:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
61. Oppose per comments made by Iridescent and DGG. IrishGuy ^talk 00:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

Subject to movement, but it's character that's the hang. What I see in common with the few administrators who have caused the most trouble in the past is pride. I don't mean that in the garden variety, all have sinned, way, but the "I am important, bow before me, as I bow before my masters" way. Two administrators I can think of have consistently assured all and sundry that they are the very heart of Wikipedia, that everyone depends upon them, that "thousands look to me every day for opinions," that they are integral to ArbCom ongoing investigations, and the like. While these people have contributed well, they have also proven to be immovable dams in the edit flow, and when they have used the block button, all Hell has broken loose. We have just reburied Hell from the last time this happened. If a person isn't actually humble, administration is not right for her or him. If a person is actively self-promoting, I have to oppose outright. I know, and I fully agree, that this means that a user like Elonka who has been here for a long time and contributed widely and stepped into some of the bigger... piles, as it were... on Wikipedia gets more scrutiny than the shoal of little users passing RFA with 30 total votes, but I can't do anything about that. If I do have reservations about someone's character, I can't support. It is absolutely nothing personal, nothing against Elonka or her extraordinary contributions, but I'm quite serious about Cincinnatus being our model administrator. Geogre (talk) 01:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC) (My concerns exist, but the double standard we're endorsing by not subjecting new candidates to this kind of scrutiny bothers me too much to stay out. Moving to support. Geogre (talk) 11:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC) )

Geogre, thanks for taking the time to post, and for what it's worth, I really do hear you. I've seen the problems that have been caused in this community by those who have misused power. I'm not sure what I can do to reassure you that my intentions are sincere. There's really no chance of me suddenly going rogue with admin powers. I mean, look at it this way: I'm already a professional online community manager. It's been a full time career of mine, for almost 20 years now. I have managed communities larger than those on Wikipedia, and have had much, much more power than anything I might get by a simple admin bit on the MediaWiki software here. I'm not working hard on Wikipedia because I want to "get" status. I already have status (yeah, I know, that doesn't sound humble, but it's true). On Maslow's hierarchy of needs, my status need is already pretty well met. I'm here on Wikipedia not for "power", but for the creativity side. I love to write, I love to organize large amounts of information into understandable structures, and I really like it here and want to help. Do you really think it's possible that someone could have over 34,000 edits if they didn't genuinely love the place?  :) --Elonka 01:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

YesNote this, not to put words into someone else's mouth. --- tqbf 01:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Please, please. Let's have light rather than heat. No one should be doubting anyone's love for the project. Heck, I even think some of the people at the BADSITES act like estranged lovers more than actual opponents of Wikipedia (and, of course, as long as they do, they make it impossible for there to be a reconciliation). Let's avoid cheap shots. Uster:tqbf, would you consider doing a strike through? Geogre (talk) 10:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

That comment by --- tqbf was totally out of line. You should know better than to violate WP:CIVIL, especially here. Monsieurdl (talk) 13:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Elonka, I didn't mean that to come off as snarky as it did. You're clearly a committed editor. But the point of that link stands. No, Geogre. Live by the casually dropped edit count, die by the casually dropped edit count. Note that I'm not an oppose. --- tqbf 13:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand. Though I would point out that even in that link, of when I was using AWB to assist with a massive categorization project in Fall 2006, I wasn't using automated bots. Every single one of those edits, I did eyeball before clicking "Save page". As I recall, I had a major setup going on, where I was running about 8 different versions of AWB at once. It didn't support tabbed browsing, so I had different instances spread out in different windows on two monitors, all working on different parts of the Special:Uncategorizedpages list (since each instance of AWB has a couple second delay as it pulls up a page). That way I could get through the list faster than using just one version, where it would be "click" "wait" "click" "wait", I had all the different versions processing at the same time. Mostly I was just checking that {{uncat}} was appropriate and clicking "save", or I was updating my regex string to improve filtering.  ;) And every so often when I saw an article go by that was a more urgent problem than just categorization, I'd pipe it to a separate window where I could take a closer look at it, like to check if it needed vandalism reverted or something. In summary, I got through many thousands of pages in a short period of time, but there was still a human in the loop on every single one of them.  :) --Elonka 19:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Didn't mean to imply the link was damning (though I definitely managed to convey that); this was, however, a point brought up in a previous Elonka RfA. It's also a specific argument addressed in "Arguments to avoid in RfA", and that link is case-in-point: of the ~28000 mainspace edits you have, that link alone attributes ~15% of them to AWB. You brought it up. For what it's worth: (a) I apologize for the tactless wording I used, (b) I reiterate that even after you strip the AWB stuff out, you're a more dedicated content editor than many of the successful RfAs from the past 3 months, and (c) I recuse myself from the vote (but not from running off my mouth). --- tqbf 19:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

In all fairness, it was me who brought edit counts up in my co-nom. However, that said, anybody with both Portal talk and Template talk edits as obviously been here a bit too long. ;) Tim Vickers (talk) 19:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I simply do not trust Elonka with admin tools based on my own past experiences. But in fairness, I do not have any recent interactions with Elonka, so I'm willing to see what other people have to say before commenting further. -- Ned Scott 01:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Considering our past history, Ned, I guess I can understand your reticence. So, for what it's worth, thanks at least for considering neutrality. I appreciate the fact that you're keeping an open mind, and, as I've said before, I really do hope that we can figure out a way to put disagreements behind us. I would like very much if we could learn better ways to work together on this project that we are both obviously very passionate about. That much at least, we definitely have in common.  :) --Elonka 02:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

You could always arbitrate her afterwards, like Durova. —Preceding comment added by • (The Freudian Slip) 13:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

No arbitration would not be necessary since Elonka has said she will put her name in Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall. While there's no mechanism to enforce such a promise I can't see this editor in particular failing to honor a good-faith recall request from multiple, neutral, established editors. --A. B. ^(talk) 17:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Durova is a bad example, as she was open to recall, and it's unlikely the arbitrators would have taken way her sysop access. -- Ned Scott 04:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

1. Hmm... I need to sleep on this one. Dustihowe (talk) 19:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

   If you have any specific questions, please don't hesitate to ask, and I'll do my best to answer.  :) --Elonka 19:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

   Or drop me a note on my talk page. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

   Neutral; I'm not convinced by the reasons given for the Oppose votes above. In fact, I think some of them are rather overstated. However, I haven't seen enough evidence of a significant change since the last failed RfA. I'm voting Neutral at this time. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC) Changing to suppport. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

   Thanks for your comments. Was there any particular reason from the last RfA that most raised concerns in your mind? I tried very hard to listen to the comments of the opposers, and I try very hard to maintain a "Good Wikipedian" standard of behavior. I am of course not perfect, but if there are areas where I can further improve, I am very open to constructive criticism. I might be able to supply diffs of specific types of discussions that I've been involved in, so you could better decide whether or not I've been doing a good job and how I might do better, if you could perhaps tell me which of my actions that you were most interested in? --Elonka 02:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

2. Chaotic (but mostly Reluctant) Neutral After extensively reviewing this topic in depth (reading Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 2 took forever), I have decided neutrality is the best course of action I can take here. Although Elonka is a highly prolific editor and contributor, her involvement in many conflicts here on Wikipedia, as well as possible concerns relating to self promotion, has made me uncomfortable to the point that I do not wish to take sides in this issue. That being said, while I do not belive this is a gambit to add another feather to her cap, I do have doubts as to the Elonka's long term dedication to the Wikipedia project. --Sharkface217 07:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

   If you don't mind my asking, what makes you doubt my dedication to the project? --Elonka 09:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

   Neutral The diff in the first opposing comment concerns me. As it was stated that this was discussed in last RFA, I will not bother doing so here again. User:Krator (t c) 18:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

   Assuming that you're talking about the WP:CENSOR issue at Talk:Kaaba, I went a little further into my thoughts on this in my answer to question #13 above. If you do have other concerns though, please feel free to bring them up, I'll be happy to elaborate.  :) --Elonka 18:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

3. Tried to figure this out, still can't make up my mind. — CharlotteWebb 15:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

   If you'd like more information on anything in particular, please ask? Or you're welcome to contact me directly if you think that would help. --Elonka 17:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

   Neutral(Change to support, see above) reluctant to oppose such a dynamic adult with so many teenagers and unnotable youngsters being admins but in the current climate, given her strong support for the Jimbo Wales Rfc I have to say I cannot support. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

   Fair enough. Though I'll say that I've seen some teenagers who do very fine work as admins. Sometimes better than some adults. :) --Elonka 23:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

   So have I seen soome and it probably does some of them good to wield responsibility but I do think we lack mature adult admins and I know others have expressed concern that it seems to be harder for successful adults to become admins than teenagers, which I do agree with. I have never voted neutral here before and actually find this a difficult one as I only know you from the Jimbo Wales Rfc which would make me oppose say were your user page anonymous but given your life achievements I find I don't wish to oppose and were it not for the Jimbo Rfc and I knew you elsewhere you would have got my support. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

   Yeah, the RfC was a very unusual situation. If you disagree with my actions there, I understand, and can respect that. I firmly believe that sometimes good faith editors can look at the same situation, and still come to different conclusions on how that situation should be dealt with. But one thing I do strongly agree with you on, is that I think Wikipedia needs more admins that can portray a good standard of emotionally mature behavior. Right now, there does seem to be a vicious cycle as the community self-selects for certain neuroses, not just among admins, but even among editors. Many times I have seen very knowledgeable people – trained academics – come to Wikipedia to help out, and then they run into a couple trolls who are pushing some bizarre POV. In a healthy culture, the sane and knowledgeable ones would win out in such a dispute, but often on Wikipedia, it seems like the winning hand is held not by those with knowledge, but by those with enormous amounts of free time. Especially when dealing with disruption, the current Wikipedia procedures give too much advantage to the griefers. A problem account can come in and post two or three lines to disrupt, and then it takes good editors hours and hours of effort to deal with that disruption. Even in a clearcut case of disruption, the Wikipedia bureaucracy required to deal with a problem account is insane. There are many times that I've seen good users "give up" rather than working through the steps of WP:DR, simply because they were horrified at the idea of having to trawl through a problem user's contribs log and gather dozens of diffs to "prove their case." It was at that time that Wikipedia stopped being fun for them, and so they just walked away, leaving the trolls to "run" the article that had been in dispute. As this happens more and more, I see more good editors being antagonized away, and more and more of the POV-pushers learning effective techniques to maintain control of their respective fiefdoms. It's a nasty cycle, that I hope Wikipedia will someday figure out a way to break. As for this RfA, I don't so much take the attacks on me personally, but the whole situation does sadden me a bit. I see myself as one of the "emotionally mature adults" that Wikipedia should most have as an admin, especially as I'm a career community manager. But instead I see many of the problem cases come flooding into the RfA, looking for buttons to push to prevent my adminship. Don't get me wrong, some of the opposes here are definitely thoughtful and good faith opposes, and I fully respect the editors who have taken the time to offer their genuine opinions. But I also see many people who either are clinging to grudges from over a year ago, or if they can't find anything to complain about, they just flat out make something up. They know it's easy to make unfounded charges, and they know how hard it is for others to prove a negative. But okay, enough rambling on my part. :) Like I said, I think if you dig into my history, I think you'll find that ultimately I'd be a good thing for Wikipedia. I'm not going to abuse the tools, and as David Gerard said in Support #81, I'm "not insane."  ;) --Elonka 00:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

   Okay, thanks for that, and indeed in light of it I am changing to support, as a manager myself I can see you would be an asset to a team and also cos of your answers. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

4. Neutral leaning to oppose. Elonka is a very devoted editor and usually good editors make good admins, on the other hand I am worry that she tends to generate unnecessary drama and related to the conflicts to be a part of a problem rather than a part of a solution. I believe recently her behavior in this regard has significantly improved. Now we have a new drama on the talk if she finds a gracious and polite way to solve the problem I vote for her, otherwise I would vote oppose Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

   Sometimes the best way to put out a fire, is simply to not give it any further fuel. --Elonka 04:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

   That was the perfect answer, Elonka, right up to the point where you piped it to WP:DNFT. Who is the troll? Bielle (talk) 07:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

   Yes, I am curious now... So her official response is simply to call me a troll? How about commenting, Elonka, on the message itself... I am curious if you would own up to writing that abusive message and saying it was improper and vowing to not take such actions in the future or whether you would lie and deny you sent that. It's a case of he said, she said, but I for one want to know if you are just someone who let her anger get control and said some things she shouldn't have or if you are willing to spread lies to try to advance yourself. DreamGuy (talk) 20:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

   I am not sure that this is the correct answer. Polite Email communications with problem users is a part of administrators duties. The correct answers would be: I have not privately communicated with DG. I have communicated but the log is altered. The log is true but out of context, I ask DG's permissions to cite logs and emails from. The log is true I am sorry about it, it would never happen again, and similar. I am not sure giving no answer is a good answer in this circumstances Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

   Elonka's refusal to comment is quite surprising and, I must say, suspicious (as her refusal to respond to question #17 in the header). Elonka, if you did not exchange this kind of mail, just say so. PHG (talk) 06:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

5. Neutral, but leaning towards oppose. While I can't dispute that this user has made some fantastic contributions, I also can't overlook the fact that she seems to be a magnet for drama of the most infantile kind. She is not responsible for it, but I suspect that the first time she does something even remotely controversial with the tools, a massive dramabomb will detonate that, frankly, would not be good for the project. Lankiveil (talk) 08:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC).

   I'm actually going to be a boring admin, doing the dull backlog kind of stuff.  ;) And I'll still be in Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall. All it will take is six good faith editors making a complaint about my use of admin tools at my talkpage, and I will voluntarily resign. But I'm not worried about it, because I'm not planning to use admin tools in controversial ways. :) --Elonka 08:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

   Neutral, but leaning oppose; as someone who has experienced "e-mail issues" in the past (not from Elonka, but a similar situation), either she explains herself, or I oppose. I will be placing this message in the neutral section shortly, and switching to oppose by 22:00 (UTC) if she does not choose to address the issue. Mr Which^??? 16:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

   I'm sorry to hear that you have been the recipient of unpleasant emails, and a bit disappointed that you would let that situation affect your decision on whether or not you think that there is a chance that I would abuse admin tools.  :/ If it's helpful at all though, I categorically deny that I have ever used email to harass anyone. Just not my style.  :) --Elonka 19:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

   Just to be clear, you are stating categorically that when DG says you sent him an e-mail with curse words in all capital letters, he is not being truthful? Is that a fair characterization? Mr Which^??? 19:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

   I think that you may find these links useful.[13][14] --Elonka 19:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

   Those links were about Dream_Guy. I need a response in the affirmative or the negative to the question, "Did you or did you not send Dream_Guy an e-mail with curse words in all capital letters?" That's all I need to know. No amount of provocation could induce me to send such an e-mail, and I would hope that a future admin would have at least as even (and hopefully moreso) as I do. That's not asking much, as I can get as frustrated as the next guy, but there's certain lines you just don't cross. Vulgar and profane e-mails are one of those lines. Mr Which^??? 20:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

   If cussing makes one ineligible to be an admin, then you'll be lucky to find anyone you could support. If revealing someone's personal chat logs (that include a cuss word) is enough to sink someone's nomination, then you've just given opponents of any RFA candidate a great incentive to reveal personal details. If we let he who has not cussed at someone off-wiki throw the first stone, you might find yourself alone in your stone-throwing. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

   (undent) There's a large difference between a profanity-laden tirade in which one is SHOUTING SWEARWORDS, and using profanity in the course of a discussion. There's a difference between saying "That's bullshit" and saying "you are the most ignorant M----- F------ moron in the G-- D--- world, and I F------ hope you never post your S--- on WP ever F------ again." I have to oppose unless she can deny she sent a similar tirade.Mr Which^??? 21:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

   This may be bordering on implying that that was the content of Elonka's alleged email conversation with Dreamguy. We don't have the content of that alleged letter, and can't use this statement to judge Elonka. Mindraker (talk) 22:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

   I tried to make it clear that it was an EXAMPLE, when I said a "similar tirade." If it wasn't clear enough, let me state it categorically: that "tirade" sprang wholesale from my imagination of what such a tirade might be like. I've never done this, but I've had it done to me once, a while back, and it was FAR worse than what I posted here. I just made that up as an example of what might be unacceptable. Mr Which^??? 22:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

   (edit conflict) MrWhich, you are correct, there is a difference. As for that sample you posted, I have no idea where you got it, but I can categorically state that I never said anything like that, to anyone, in any communications medium anywhere. On-wiki, off-wiki, written, verbal, semaphore flags, secret codes, Ameslan, morse code, or smoke signals. If someone did send emails like that to you though, you have my sympathies. One technique in dealing with emails like that, is to forward them back to the email provider. For example, if you get something from a Yahoo email address, you can forward the email back to (I think) [email protected] , and sometimes they will take action such as to cancel the offender's email account. For example, see this link.[15] Or if you tell me the domain name that the email came from, I can better advise on how to properly report it. --Elonka 22:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

   I have switched from oppose to support, mainly per the canvassing done by PHG. I will not be party to that kind of junk, even if I have some reservations. I appreciate your at least denying that you sent as vulgar a note as the one I constructed as an example. I think it would be comforting to many with reservations if you would simply post the note you sent that DG objected to on your own talk page, link there, and explain what happened. If you regret it, say so. If you feel it wasn't that big of a deal, and DG really is an old so-and-so, or whatever, then say that. I know it would help me feel more comfortable in my support vote. Regards, Mr Which^??? 22:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

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.