Misplaced Pages

:Requests for adminship/ElinorD: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:38, 6 June 2007 editGogo Dodo (talk | contribs)Administrators197,922 edits →[]: Support← Previous edit Revision as of 21:38, 6 June 2007 edit undoLessHeard vanU (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users33,613 edits →Discussion: sNext edit →
Line 100: Line 100:
#Wholehearted, unconditional '''support'''! Three cheers to ElinorD! ] ] 20:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC) #Wholehearted, unconditional '''support'''! Three cheers to ElinorD! ] ] 20:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
#'''Support''' -- ] 20:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC) #'''Support''' -- ] 20:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
#'''Support''' This editor and I disagree fundamentally over part of the wording of a proposed policy. However in all those discussions we have had I have never had the slightest reason tp doubt that this person is not well intentioned and would not comport herself to the standards of Misplaced Pages. I further believe she would make a fine admin, hence my vote.] 21:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

'''Oppose''' '''Oppose'''


Revision as of 21:38, 6 June 2007

ElinorD

Voice your opinion (61/0/0); Scheduled to end 22:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

ElinorD (talk · contribs) - ElinorD is a wonderful editor. She is exceedingly clueful and considerate. I first met her at Talk:Christianity during a heated time at the article, when her gentle reason was needed and welcome. She is always kindhearted and civil in her interactions with other editors. She is a very visible and positive presence on Misplaced Pages. Her hard work and dedication to the project has been repeatedly recognized by barnstars, encouraging comments from other editors and several offers for an RfA nomination. Additionally, Elinor's interactions with other editors show her deep concern and appreciation for the interests and ideals of the project. Her time is well-spent and balanced between fighting vandals, building content and improving articles. Examples of her contributions to Misplaced Pages can be seen at Come Rack! Come Rope!, Charles Paget and Fontanini. She helps keep commonly vandalised articles clean such as Popcorn and Animal testing. Her reporting of persistant vandals on WP:AIV and comments on WT:NPA are examples of her clear grasp of Misplaced Pages policy and culture. Elinor is a strong and positive contributor to the content and climate of Misplaced Pages. The sysop bit would be put to good use in her hands. Vassyana 22:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, and I'm grateful for Vassyana's trust. ElinorD (talk) 22:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


Questions for the candidate

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

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: My biggest number of edits have been to Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Sometimes, I've even had to leave my own userpage in a vandalised condition in order to report the vandal I was reverting as quickly as possible. It would be nice if I could block vandals directly, after appropriate warnings. I am interested in the whole idea of helping to build a free encyclopaedia, and am constantly trying to make myself more familiar with image copyright policy, which I wholeheartedly endorse. I think admin tools would be very useful in helping with image copyright issues, and I think I would be quite good at enforcing the policy as gently and tactfully as possible (knowing that some violators may just be inexperienced users who want a nice-looking user page and genuinely don't understand that if an image is on one page it may not necessarily be allowed on another), though I would prefer to leave the less clear cases to more experienced administrators. Finally, I have on a few occasions seen some particularly malicious vandalism where an IP or new user starts posting an editor's real name or phone number into articles. I have sometimes reverted such edits, and have seen them disappearing from page histories quite quickly. I would like, with the tools, to be able to delete and partially restore such pages, even before emailing the oversight list, rather than leaving them visible in the history. I am sure that every administrator finds unexpected tasks, and I would, of course, help out in any way possible.
2. What are your best contributions to Misplaced Pages, and why?
A: I have been pleased at being able, on a few occasions, to calm things down at some slightly heated discussion pages, and I feel that that has led to a better article. (I'm thinking in particular of Christianity.) As regards my own writing, many of the articles I'm active at existed long before I joined, and while I have sometimes done copy edits, improved wording, and added (free) images, I think my contributions to many long-existing articles have been more at the level of talk page discussion than of creative writing. A list of the articles I've created can be found at my user page. I'm probably proudest of the striped grass mice articles, not because of their quality but rather because I didn't even know they existed until I visited a zoo and took a photo; and that inspired me to look up information about them and create stubs in my user space — though I was very glad of the help of members of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Mammals in checking for errors before I moved them to mainspace. I am quite interested in historical British figures, and have created a few stubs on characters from the reign of Elizabeth, and have a few more planned.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I don't get stressed very easily. I've certainly been in situations where insults were flying around, and it was unpleasant; but they weren't generally directed at me! I think the closest I've been to a conflict is at an article about a living person where another editor kept adding some very insulting wording to the opening sentence, and reverting as "vandalism" anyone who tried to remove it. A couple of administrators said I had done the right thing in reverting, and the administrator who disagreed later withdrew his disagreement. Although I can't point to any really acrimonious battles I've been in, I can confidently say that I have a history of remaining calm in real life, and I see no reason why I would be unable to cope with the increased insults and conflicts that may come with adminship.
4. I notice you are a vandal fighter. How do you feel having the tools may affect your participation in policy conflicts? Specifically, how do you view the relationship between ArbCom rulings and community consensus, especially as policy is concerned, with regards to these diffs here:, ,  ? Also, how do you view "edit wars" over policy pages in general? Are these ever a means of achieving consensus, and if not, how could consensus be achieved without participating in them?—AL 02:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

General comments

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


Discussion

Support

  1. KillerChihuahua 22:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. Sane. And a writing editor as well, which is a bonus.--Doc 23:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  3. Hell yeah. Nick 23:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support, per nom. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  5. Strong support - well-proven track record. Absolutely no question in my mind - Alison ☺ 23:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  6. Strong support for this experienced editor. FloNight 23:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support a fine candidate who I thought was an administrator. Good luck! Majorly (talk | meet) 23:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  8. Strong support ElinorD is a talented writer and a productive and fair-minded editor with a solid understanding of policy in both its letter and its spirit. There is no question in my mind that she will make good use of the tools.Proabivouac 23:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  9. El_C 23:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support Thiscuser shows a broad base of experience in mainspace and namespace, and is the first user I can recall seeing with 1005 edit summary in all article. I would like to see answers to the questions, or a statement of intent not to answer them, but am happy to support without. A good user.--Anthony.bradbury 23:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  11. Strong Support I have seen ElinorD around many times before. She is a decent user, and she will be very valuable as an administrator (of course, she's very valuable already). Acalamari 00:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  12. Strong support. An excellent editor, very fair-minded, and shows a good understanding of policy. SlimVirgin 00:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support Definatly a good admin. Captain panda 00:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  14. Strong Support Kind, helpful editor, who is a tremendous asset to the project. No one deserves the mop more. Xoloz 00:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  15. Strong Support. A great editor! --Mschel 01:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support absolutely. A fantastic editor who will make a fantastic admin. Sarah 01:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support. -- Phoenix2 01:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support Appears to be keen to improve wikipedia and learn more about its policies Sam Orchard 01:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  19. Strong support. Elinor represents the best of Misplaced Pages. Kind, polite and cheerful; and at the same time, serious, thoughtful and respectful critic when needed. I can thing of few non-admin editors currently active more deserving of the tools. Go Eli! Phaedriel - 01:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support. Has all the right ingredients - smart, mature, kind, knowledgeable and writes well. Will make a great admin. Crum375 01:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support Bucketsofg 02:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support a good candidate --Steve (Stephen) 03:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  23. Michael Snow 03:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support Good editor, strong contributor. I suspect that we may not see eye-to-eye on issues of politics or religion, but I will support. Seems to recognize the wikipedia is run (or should be) by consensus agreement on verifiable references, not personal viewpoints. —Gaff 03:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support Have seen her around often. Good contributor. No reason not to trust her with the tools.--Dakota 03:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  26. Support. Seems very level headed. Will make good use of the tools. Jayjg 04:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  27. I rarely comment on non-controversial nominations like this, but she seems like the absolute perfect candidate. I see no reason not to give her the tools. Ral315 » 04:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  28. Strong support with pleasure. 'Exceedingly clueful' is an understatement. I've rarely seen anyone so wise and mature without coming across as pompous and overbearing. Certainly will be an asset. Riana ⁂ 04:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  29. Support -- will be an asset with administrator tools. Jkelly 04:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  30. Now that the questions are answered, I see no reason not to support whole heartedly. Good luck with the tools! G1ggy! Review me! 04:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  31. Support. Editors who are habitually kind — as opposed to just civil or professional — are worth their weight in gold. Editors who remain friendly and courteous while editing subjects that arose strong feelings, and who still find time to counteract vandalism and write well-rounded articles, are even more valuable. Elinor is an asset to this project and will make a great admin. -Severa (!!!) 04:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  32. Excellent editor... Has a good understanding of policies.. --Dark Falls 06:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  33. Hey, isn't she an admin already? Oh wait... TML 06:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  34. Support no problems I can see --Herby 07:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  35. Support I like what I see...will be a good admin. Jmlk17 07:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  36. Why not? Clear case of administrator-awesomeness. As long as she stays clear of the dark side of the broom, I trust her judgement. mceder (u t c) 08:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  37. Support without reservations. —AldeBaer 08:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  38. Support nice editor indeed! Eddie Guimont 09:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  39. ROARR!! Smart little user.Bishzilla | ROARR!! 09:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC).
  40. Genuine surprise, thought already was one. Moreschi 09:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  41. Support - I thought you already were :) .--Cometstyles 10:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  42. Support per all above. Besides familiarity with the admin tools, she's clearly a serious article-writer. Tho' the edit stats reveal an eclectic mix of article contributions: Roman Catholic Church, Milk, Diarrhea and Jimmy Wales - interesting juxtaposition. Walton 10:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  43. Support, definitely. Neil ╦ 11:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  44. Support A fine user. Thanks for your work, now go mop! JodyB talk 12:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  45. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 13:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  46. Support based on answers and personal experience. Vizjim 13:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  47. Support - fully qualified candidate, good answers to questions. Newyorkbrad 14:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  48. Support certainly won't abuse the tools. --Aude (talk) 14:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  49. Support Good answers to questions, calm and intelligent.--Mantanmoreland 14:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  50. Support - an excellent user, will certainly be helpfull at AIV where she's always filing reports. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  51. Support Her careful and reasonable approach is an asset on RC patrol; writes well on a variety of topics. Tom Harrison 14:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  52. Support Great in difficult situations - will make a fine admin. Sophia 14:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  53. Support A great editor, always serious and sensible. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  54. support proud to help give you the mop and bucket. BH (Talk) 15:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  55. Support. I've often seen this editor being helpful. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 16:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  56. Support -- FayssalF - 16:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  57. Support - Very impressive. --Tλε Rαnδоm Eδιτоr 17:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  58. Support hardworker, and serious Modernist 19:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  59. Peacent 19:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  60. Wholehearted, unconditional support! Three cheers to ElinorD! Beit Or 20:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  61. Support -- Gogo Dodo 20:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  62. Support This editor and I disagree fundamentally over part of the wording of a proposed policy. However in all those discussions we have had I have never had the slightest reason tp doubt that this person is not well intentioned and would not comport herself to the standards of Misplaced Pages. I further believe she would make a fine admin, hence my vote.LessHeard vanU 21:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose. I would not vote for anyone with less than 12 months experience. That being said, if you can give me any reason why I should change my opinion, then I will gladly reconsider. But that doesn't mean that I will change my mind. Gold♥ 01:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC) Okay. I'll strike it, and all because of --Iamunknown, for I know from some past experience that he/she is a good and worthy editor, and I'll defer on this occasion. Gold♥ 03:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Please reconsider your position, okay. Your opinion will not likely be given much weight since it is extreme and far outside of the norm for when most users become admins. Better to make your comment specific to the nom, I think. FloNight 01:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Well that's my opinion. It doesn't matter about weight. Why should I reconsider, give me some good reasons. Gold♥ 02:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
"Your opinion is far outside what is the norm," sounds like a good reason to reconsider. You seem to want to debate the issue of time editing as a litmus test, which has nothing to do with this editor's RfA. Consider taking your debate to the appropriate forum. —Gaff 02:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Have you examined Elinor's contributions? I expect that will be enough to be able to make a decision. She has submitted correct WP:AIV reports since February , has contributed to forums regarding copyright , is empathetic and looks out for other Wikipedians and has reverted vandalism . As an administrator, she could correctly utilize the rollback tool to more quickly revert vandalism, delete images that violate our non-free content policy, patrol unblock and help editors in need, and monitor WP:AIV to block vandals. She would perform well as an administrator, is in need of the tools; what more is necessary? --Iamunknown 03:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I have a good reason for you to reconsider: Luna Santin. As you can see here at his RfA, he was here for only three months when that RfA passed; and he turned out to be a great administrator. In his case, the quality of his work outweighed his length of time here, and I believe that the same thing applies to ElinorD as well. :) Acalamari 03:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Neutral Leaning towards support - unsure with answers to questions, but my leaning towards support is based on past encounters. G1ggy! Review me! 23:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC) Supporting now.