Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elen of the Roads: Difference between revisions

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

Elen of the Roads

Final (173/9/4); Closed by Rlevse at 00:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Nomination

Elen of the Roads (talk · contribs) – I introduce you to Elen of the Roads. Originally I thought she was an admin, until the little lookup tool said she wasn't. She has been in the project since 2008, and editing fully since 2009. She is an active contributer to Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and other Wikipedia based namespace. Her comments in AFD, AN/I, etc [1] [2] [3] [4] applies common sense and a ton of policy knowledge. She also wrote some articles as well, listed on her userpage. I think Elen of the Roads will make a great adminstrator. Secret ^account 17:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Co-nom A few years ago, I wrote that if you wanted to become an admin then you should, Start acting like an admin. Admins really have no more authority than non-admins. They only have a few extra tools. If you want the job, then others should see you as an admin already! I think that description describes EotR perfectly. I was shocked when I learned that she wasn't already an admin. Elen has a world of policy knowledge and expertise. She participates in a myriad of corners around Wikipedia and has garnered the respect of the community. A quick glance at her talk page will show that people routinely come to her seeking her input/insight. I don't always agree with her, but I've always respected her input and felt like she was willing to listen to the other side of issues (eg not set in stone in her views.) Elen works in (and understands) areas of this project that many people (including admins) shy away from. In my opinion, being an admin is not about the bit or going through an RfA, but rather an attitude and dedication to the project. Elen has that attitude and dedication. I don't think the non-admin EotR will be very different from the admin EotR. Thus, this RfA is not about making Elen into an admin, but rather recognizing the fact that she already is an admin.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I am honoured to accept this nomination. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

A bit about myself. I'm an Englishwoman, I have grown up children, and have spent my working life in local government in England. At one time I was the complaints officer for the city in which I was based, so I have plenty of experience of operating in a world that is hedged about with rules, while at the same time being required to come up with negotiated, compromise solutions to most of the complaints raised. My first job was collecting the rates. My latest job involves implementing customer software solutions.

I started quite tentatively on Wikipedia - my interest was in the project itself, I didn't come with articles I wanted to create - and I spent a lot of my first year just observing. As I've gone on, I've tried my hand at many things. I figured that if I could understand the Poll Tax, the most badly written piece of legislation I have ever had the misfortune to come across, I could probably get my head round copyright law, so have developed an interest in that area. New page and vandal patrolling can be fun - although I only use Twinkle, as I don't like to go too fast. I like finding obscure articles that can be improved with a couple of paragraphs of properly referenced content. Most of all, I like taking what I see as a customer service type role, making interventions that allow productive editing to continue.

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

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

A: Really anything that I have got my head around, and understand the policy well enough to be sure I know what I'm doing. I've vandal patrolled and WP:AIV always has backlogs. I have a good understanding of deletion policies for articles, and of copyright for images and articles. One area I think I can contribute fairly well in is on WP:AN and WP:ANI - encouraging editors to move away from reporting each other at noticeboards, and towards finding a strategy for working on the article. Quite often this is the hurdle that newer editors fall at - they don't understand the whole editing process (the Bold Revert Discuss cycle- especially Discuss, verifiability, how significant is that thing you want to add etc) and things can quickly descend into acrimony when they feel they are being put down. At the same time, experienced editors do lose patience with what they can see as clueless newbies and SPAs. Sometimes a well placed intervention can turn things around, and move everyone on to proper discussion, or at least proper dispute resolution, and I do find that if I can get everyone talking to me, it will quite often lead to them talking productively with each other.

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

A: I won't pretend I'm a prolific contributor. My finest moment was probably High Shear Mixer. It came up for AfD [5] - looked like this at the time [6]. Just about the only sources are the technical papers on manufacturers websites (including some splendid ones on Dongshen's website - Smash equipment series), so writing it was an exercise in taking the technical info without promoting the manufacturers; but I was most pleased with the fact that the chap who nominated it for deletion helped me to rewrite it. That's when I feel Wikipedia is really working. There are a few others on my userpage - Arvandus, The Chauffeur etc. In each case, they are quite short articles that I stumbled across and thought could be improved. In terms of contributions that are not specifically writing articles, I'm really proud of my contributions to Glossary of ancient Roman religion - which I confess I started out by nominating for speedy A10, as the very limited actual content at that point appeared to duplicate content in other places [7]. That was got over, and in the end of it, I did a fair bit of work, most of it just supporting the very knowledgeable editors to work with each other and keep editing (see Talk:Glossary of ancient Roman religion).

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

A: Well, yes, I have. Mostly it's because I put myself into conflicts in an effort to defuse them, I don't have any actual vested viewpoint in the subject. Sometimes this hasn't gone so well as a strategy, and I have had to deal with people who reacted badly. Also I have a fairly dry English wit, which can be seen as insulting by people who don't do irony (or whose first language isn't UK English). My first response if someone says of one of my edits "that was a bit off," is to look to see if I need to apologise - if someone took offence it won't have been what I intended, so an apology would usually be in order. I've had people call me all sorts because I've nominated 'their' page for deletion, or questioned their edit. You can't get angry at this kind of thing - if you take it personally, you're no use to anyone. I have 'walked' (you know what I mean) out of arguments before rather than get angry, and I do think that's sound advice in general. By and large I do believe you catch more wasps with jam than with vinegar, and I try to maintain a moderate tone - although that annoys some people. And I try to be clear whether I'm talking about content, or about policy and approach, so people hopefully know it's not their facts I'm arguing with them about, it's whether they have sourced it, or whether it goes in the infobox, or whatever.

Additional optional question from Nakon

4. What is your view on ignoring all of the rules?

A:I must confess I am considered something of a maverick among local government officers for my opinion on rules. I believe they are there to serve the community, and if they are frequently bypassed in good faith by those whose duty it is to enforce them, then one should look first to see whether the rule needs changing. However, that is not IAR, that is the way policy is supposed to develop. One does, though, occasionally come across a situation where nothing quite seems to fit, and one does have to take a more creative approach. I have an example - a while back an abandoned user talk page was brought to my attention. It contained only a lengthy sexual fantasy involving it appeared the editor having sex with his apparently underage brother. That doesn't fit into any defined category for CSD, although one can see that it needs to go (what encyclopaedic purpose exactly was it fulfilling?). But Fox was going through one of its periodic 'ZOMG! Wikipedia is a nest of perverts!' alarums, so I didn't want to take it to MfD (as deletion discussions seem to be watched and discussed off Wiki). So I quietly asked if it could be deleted IAR (I used a speedy tag with an IAR request instead of a CSD reason). It was gone inside the hour, no fuss, no chance of drawing attention to it. I could see me being the admin who deleted if a similar situation came up again - there isn't really a rule you could point to that allows you to do it, but it clearly needs to be done. Most of the time though, ignoring the rules just results in teh drahmah, and it takes far longer to get resolved than if you'd just waited for it to work under the rules. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Question from Skomorokh

5. Have you declared your previous accounts (if any)? If not, please take the opportunity to do so here, or if there are privacy concerns, to the Arbitration Committee.

A.I have never edited under a previous account on Wikipedia, and I have no alternates. I have a unified account, so if I pop up on any other projects (I make the odd edit at Commons and Simple) its always under this name. As I recall, I didn't figure out you could edit anonymously until after I'd created the account, and I don't think I've ever edited logged out (certainly not after I switched skins and started using wikEd.Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Additional question from Keepscases

6. If intelligent and seemingly benevolent space aliens land on Earth tomorrow, when (if ever) do you believe they should be permitted to create Wikipedia accounts? Why?

A:What a fascinating question:) Do you ask this often? I'll have you know that I'm a great fan of Doctor Who . The first thing your aliens will have to do is interface their system with the worldwide web-or get broadband (this might prove more difficult if they have to phone the helpdesk in Kolkotta). The next thing is to learn English (or whichever Wikipedia they wished to edit) - or tune their universal translator. Otherwise they would have real difficulties. Assuming they can access the interface and understand what they are looking at (and maybe tried a few test edits as IPs - just to test the interface, you understand) they will maybe want to set up an account. Assuming we knew they were space aliens (maybe we wouldn't), I can't think of any grounds on which to ban them from the get-go. It is after all the English-speaking Wikipedia (or Spanish/Korean/Farsi Wikipedia), not the Wikipedia for English people. They are intelligent - I wouldn't think their markup could be any worse than mine (unless they are the Forest of Cheem), but they might have some competency issues over understanding our policies, if their social set up is significantly different. Verifiability could be a real issue though. If they decide to write an article about the situation between the Vinvocci and the Zocci, even if they are very careful to adhere to WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, and to cite several esteemed Malmooth scholars and official reports from the intergalactic Judoon peacekeeping force, HOW WOULD WE KNOW.Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Additional optional question from Lambanog

7. Editor A is involved in a content dispute with Editor B and brings it to ANI. A non-involved party, Editor C, after looking at the description of the dispute comments that it appears Editor A is forum shopping. Knowing nothing else and all other things being equal, what do you make of Editor C's comment? Do you think better or worse of Editor A?

A:The first thing one would have to do is check it out. Are there diffs? If not, can I find Editor A posting in multiple locations? Is this because Editor A is being shunted about - I have seen people be told to go away and post on the other board, only to have people complain on the other board that they are forum shopping. If Editor A hasn't managed to find a forum to raise his problem, then that needs to be addressed. If it's already been done to death on Reliable Sources that he cannot include that Russian website, or on Fringe that he cannot claim that the Illuminati did it, so now he's trying to get the poor soul trying to keep his allegations about 12ft lizards out of the article on the Chilean mining rescue into trouble for edit warring, then that's a different kettle of fish. If life as a complaints officer has taught me anything, its that you don't necessarily take everything as Gospel, you check it out.Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Extremely optional question from SarekOfVulcan

8. Is it time to bluelink Wikipedia:Requests for comment/SarekOfVulcan? Why or why not?

A:Let me think about that one ;) Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Also extremely optional question from User:SandyGeorgia

9. What would you think of replacing the variably enforced policy WP:CIVIL with a policy encompassing WP:COLLEGIALITY? I'm trying to get at how you might enforce civility vs. personal attacks vs. AGF etc. Also, if you'd like, you might address here the notion that you might become a "cowgirl" admin on these issues, expressed in an oppose.

Give me a few hours - I'd like to answer this one as civility isn't something Wikipedia handles consistently at the moment, so improvement is always possible. I'm not at all sure why Wehwalt referred to me as a cowgirl - I've never ridden anything larger than a seaside donkey up to now :) - but I think it was a misunderstanding on his part, reading a comment that was personal to a particular user.Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

A.OK, this turned into a 1000 word essay, so I've had to cut it down. I think one problem with our civility policy is that civility is primarily a cultural thing (culture as anything from national through societal down to the influence of one's immediate family), and these days we have a lot of different cultures editing in this project. Civility can mean showing appropriate respect (as in Japanese culture) or it can mean being friendly (as in stereotypical Canadian culture). Or at the other extreme, 'civility' can actually imply something false or phony - grinding out 'have a nice day' when you're actually thinking 'drop dead'. In closer knit groups (eg project teams, families) civility can assume a level of familiarity, which can be affectionate but which can also be oppressive if a newcomer isn't 'in' on the rules.

I think another problem is that 'comment on the content, not the editor' fails because it takes no account of how we hear or perceive things. Most editors will not have been members of debating teams, will never have been exposed to the Socratic method, will never have studied any kind of philosophical reasoning process, and in many cases will never actually have had the opportunity to learn how to discuss something (rather than have an argument about it). So in an exchange, most editors cannot hear the difference between a comment on the content and a comment on them. This is even more so on talkpages, where an editor isn't just adding some content, they are explaining their beliefs, perceptions, opinions. So if Editor A and Editor B are arguing about whether Jade Goody can be described as a celebrity, if Editor A is a fan, they can easily hear Editor B as saying that they are a fool for being a fan, when what Editor B has actually said is "Foo has written a new book: "20th century celebrity re-evaluated" in which he argues that the sheep-like rush to elevate each new unknown to a temporary place in the spotlight was the product of an ever growing media needing something to fill the 5000 tv channels now available." A's response "you just want to add that because you don't like her," incenses B (who probably doesn't like her, and is quite keen to see this re-evaluation somewhere in the article), and off we go in a slanging match.

In my opinion, this is why civility is so variably enforced. Not because there is some kind of cabal :) but because everyone approaches it with a different internal view of civility, and a different set of internal logic/feelings that colours what they hear.

So how would I fix it? Well, my kids school had a 'learning agreement' which set out what they were all actually trying to achieve - something along the lines of 'children have a right to learn and teachers have a right to teach, and everyone must create a learning environment in which this can happen.' I though that approach was rather better than just handing over a list of 'don't run in the corridor, don't dye your hair purple' type rules. The school did have those too, and I did have some lively debates with the head about how relevant wearing jumpers in the corridors was to creating a learning establishment. I'm wondering if an approach like that, that established a minimum standard of behaviour from people who want to add to the project, necessary to keep making an encyclopaedia. Bullying and browbeating (reverting Editor A's every edit in article space, rubbishing everything they say on talkpages - or disregarding them completely, ignoring any concensus that forms around them, jumping on any and everything (however little) said against their edit by other editors, regardless of the overall opinion of other editors) is as damaging to editing as the type of edit that will get you a civility block, but it is much harder to get it dealt with (Lambanog below has made a very good point about the variability of our dispute resolution processes). In fact, it's probably more damaging. Good editors will leave a war zone - how often have we heard it said 'I stopped editing there because of X's attitude - whereas if someone pulls out a random insult and gets blocked for it, they would probably think the system was working.

I guess you could call this collegiality, although I prefer not to use words that do not have a relatively clear definition across the major versions of the English language, and this may be one. Collegiality suggests academe, and academics can be terribly bitchy when arguing with each other. They do not hesitate to say "Everything Foo has written in the last ten years has been nonsense of one kind or another." Whatever the word used, I think one key thing will be the approach to enforcement. Much more use of intervention and warning would help - in an ideal world one might envisage a pool of editors prepared to go in and refocus a discussion that is going down the tubes, and warn people that they need to tone it down. Edit warring warnings could perhaps be extended to include behaviours around the content dispute (edit warring does encompass more than just 3RR reverting).

To respond more on current policy (and that remark about riding the range), I do think civility blocks are a last, rather than a first move, one needs to look at overall conduct (was this a one off or does it fall into a category of bullying behaviour) and that normally some warning should be given first. I would block without warning for racist, sexist or other egregious abuse, but not for the statement "everything you have said so far is rubbish," although persistence after warning, or if it was part of a sustained attack would warrant a block. I wouldn't block straight off for swearing unless it was part of a nasty insult ('that's fucking rubbish' is not particularly worse than 'that's rubbish' in western society, but 'you fucking cunt' is clearly nothing but an insult), but if the editor had been asked by a member of the discussion to refrain from swearing (people don't have to like it, and should be able to ask another person to stop swearing in a discussion), and the editor persisted, then that would again fall into browbeating behaviour (it's not as if it slipped out by accident - you have to type it in on the keyboard) and could warrant a block.

What you have to be is even handed, and if we had some clearer minimum guidelines for how to achieve an environment in which people can edit, it would be easier for everyone to be even handed.

And finally, from my own personal experience of being the complaints officer for the city, I will not take offence if someone comes to me with a problem and in the course of telling me about it swears AT ME or says something snide or insulting TO ME ('you English women all stick together' etc). I've already had people insist I have mental health problems for nominating their article for deletion. This is my personal approach - it arises from my life experiences. If I can see that there is a problem on question underlying the aggressive approach, I will still try to deal with it, and I have found that challenging the language at the outset rarely helps that. However, as above, just posting flat out insults will get the customary response.

If this disqualifies me from being an admin, then it's better to find that out now.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Question by Sandstein

10. As a supplemental question to the above: Under what circumstances would you undo a block for incivility or personal attacks with which you disagree?  Sandstein  16:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

A.OK. Something that does annoy me is the following scenario, which I have only ever seen enacted in respect of civility blocks. An admin comes to ANI and says "I have blocked User:Foo". A debate ensues, with a variety of opinions being expressed, some of which support the block. In the middle of which another admin comes along and says "terrible block, I have unblocked Foo." That annoys me, so I wouldn't do that. If an admin has tossed it out to the community, one should at least wait to judge the community's mood. To my certain knowledge, nobody has died from not being able to edit Wikipedia for a few hours - it doesn't have to be done immediately. I would certainly express my opinion, maybe communicate with the blocking editor. Eventually I might be the one to unblock, but I wouldn't do it while the discussion was going on. Away from the bearpit, if I encountered a block I thought was totally wrong, I would start by communicating with the blocking admin. If I my opinion remained the same after discussion, I might ask if it could be taken to AN for further discussion. If an editor made an unblock appeal against a civility block, and it fell to me to review, I would gauge how well they understood what had happened, and what they were going to do next, as one would with any block. Communication is fraught with misunderstanding, so unless the block was a total error (eg the blocking admin had ascribed the offence to the wrong user), it is likely that communication could have been better, even if the block is a balance of opinion job. If the user understands that, and isn't going to go straight back into the fray with all guns blazing, then the usual unblock criteria are in application. If the block was for a more egregious offence (eg racist abuse), then I would hesitate to unblock unless the user showed a real understanding of why what they said was out of bounds (which sadly, they rarely do). Does this answer your question? Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Question by Sven Manguard

11. I noticed at your userpage that you are not displaying any indications that you are a member or participant in any wikiprojects. Is this correct, or are you in fact a member of one or more projects? If so, which ones? If not, why not?

A. I think when I started Wikipedia, I had no clear idea of content I was interested in creating. My interest was in the project itself, how you made it work, and particularly how you made it keep on working as the membership changed and grew, how something so apparently unstructured could actually manage itself. I'm actually a member of Wikiproject Ancient Egypt [8] but I'm probably their least active editor that's still on the project :( I signed up because I have a stack of sources, I trained as an archaeologist and I've been interested in the subject for 30 years, so I ought to be a useful content creator. The first thing I wanted to do was to rewrite the article on Tefnut. I'm still "working" on it. What it showed me was that I find it very hard to focus on creating content. I don't feel I'm active enough to justify sticking their userbox on my page, although I would if they asked me to. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

General comments

• Links for Elen of the Roads: Elen of the Roads (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Elen of the Roads can be found here.

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review her contributions before commenting.

Discussion

• Editing statistics posted on the talk page. Airplaneman ✈ 00:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• Can this reach WP:200, it still has four more days. Secret ^account 22:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Support

1. per everyone below. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

   Interesting... :) ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 04:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

   Best support rationale I've seen :) Airplaneman ✈ 21:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

2. Support—I've frequently seen Elen around various venues on Wikipedia as well as in my watchlist and article histories, always contributing positively and knowledgeably. Airplaneman ✈ 00:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

   I know many have said this (see below) but I also got the impression that Elen was an admin when first encountering her and was surprised that she wasn't. Airplaneman ✈ 21:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

3. As nominator Secret ^account 00:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
4. Support I'm surprised that EotR isn't admin already! Can be trusted with the tools, I think, and will be a net positive. bobrayner (talk) 00:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
5. Enthusiastic support she's one of the very best people we have for dealing with complex questions and difficult users. I have had occasion to wish that I were capable of doing as well as she does. (There are a few areas where my views and Elen's differ a little , but that's no reason to lessen the degree of support--it would be true of everyone.) DGG ( talk ) 00:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

   Strong candidate. Townlake (talk) 01:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC) switching to oppose

6. Support. Thought she was already an admin. Looie496 (talk) 01:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
7. Beat the co-nom support - A fantastic candidate. ~NerdyScienceDude 01:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
8. Support Elen is clueful, helpful, and knowledgeable. Although one has to wonder if a person who is an experienced public servant and still wants to be a Wikipedia admin might be a bit of a masochist. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
9. Support Of course!! Gfoley4 / Wanna chat? 01:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
10. Support - Seen you around, don't know of any concerns. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
11. Support. An excellent candidate. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
12. This, I guess, was bound to be. Sure. --RegentsPark (talk) 01:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
13. I've seen good work and a clueful attitude. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
14. Support. The candidate has much experience in many areas, so why not? The Utahraptor^{Talk to me}/_{Contributions} 01:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
15. Support Thoughtful editor with experience defusing tension... can't think of any reason not to support. 28bytes (talk) 01:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
16. Support --Addihockey10 01:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
17. I thought so too. :/ Talktome^(Intelati) 02:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
18. Support. Yes. Tiderolls 02:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
19. Support Very positive contributions in some difficult areas. First Light (talk) 02:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
20. Support - well, the "I thought she was already" line has already been used a few times, so I guess I can't say that. I've seen nothing but good work from this contributor and like her attitude. PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 02:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
21. Support Inka888^ContribsTalk 02:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
22. Absolutely yes; was glad to see this link come alive. Very strong candidate in every regard. Antandrus (talk) 02:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
23. Support The candidate has the temperament and people skills to do a splendid job as an adminstrator, albeit she is light on edits to mainspace.--Hokeman (talk) 02:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
24. Support No problems that I can see. --John (talk) 03:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC) Back to support following our recent conversation at Elen's talk. --John (talk) 15:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
25. Support I have often noticed Elen's helpful contributions, and enthusiastically endorse this RfA. Johnuniq (talk) 03:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
26. I'm quite shocked to see that this user is not already an administrator. I suspect this will pass with a very high support tally disproportionate to what may be minimal opposition. Master&Expert (Talk) 03:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
27. Support Elen has style, grace, wit, and above all intellectual integrity. She's open-minded and fair, and knows how to defuse tension with a sense of humor (we need lots more of that around here). She's trusted, and authoritative without being overbearing. Cynwolfe (talk) 03:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
28. Support friend of content and good sense. No friend of drama, yet not shy to help soften dramatics. Good luck! ---Sluzzelin talk 03:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
29. Support Easy decision. Courcelles 03:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
30. Support I notice that you've been very helpful cleaning up copyright, especially this one (It appears to be blanked, sorry about that). I appreciate your helpfulness to the project and therefore I'll support. Minimac (talk) 04:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
31. Per 28bytes, for the most part. A great user. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 04:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
32. Support Most definitely. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
33. Support. Whenever I see that user name appear, something good has been done. Editor strikes me as even-tempered, knowledgeable, and trustworthy. Drmies (talk) 04:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
34. Support Yes! Finally :) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 05:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
35. Stephen 05:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
36. Support MarmadukePercy (talk) 06:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
37. Support I rarely want to chime in to support a candidate, but this is a great candidate for the job. For instance, her input on a debate over reliable sources several months back was invaluable based on her thorough understanding of policy. — SpikeToronto 06:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
38. Support. I particularly endorse DGG's comments here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
39. Support I'd always thought you were an admin. Bejinhan talks 06:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
40. Support yes please. Bencherlite^Talk 07:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
41. Support I fully agree with Balloonman. This RfA only serves to set a flag this candidate clearly achieved through her editing and skills. Like many above, I too often wondered why she was not an admin yet. Time to fix this :-) Regards SWM (SoWhy[on]Mobile) 07:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
42. Without doubt. I vaguely recall some interactivity previously that was positive. Certainly every time I see Elen's signatire it seems to have something wise in front of it. The joint nomination statements say it all really. Pedro :  Chat  07:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
43. Support Per DGG and others. Great editor that can definitely be trusted with the tools.--Mike Cline (talk) 08:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
44. Support. I've seen Elen of the Roads all over the place, doing all sorts of great work - definitely a great admin candidate. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
45. Support - extremely qualified candidate :) —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 7:39pm • 08:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
46. Support As Per DGG and Baloonman and track is good and see no concerns.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
47. Support. I assumed I'd be "beat the nom support", but I sign off for a few hours, the RfA is transcluded, and I sign back on to discover 47 supports ahead of me :-) Per this and other past-interactions: editor is level-headed and has massive reserves of good-faith, helpfulness and clue. If it wasn't for pop-ups I'd be trotting out the old cliché right now—Elen is already an admin: let's make it official. TFOWR 09:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
48. Strong support Thought she was one already - let's make it so. Aiken (talk) 09:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
49. Support. Clearly well qualified, scores highly on pretty much every count. Alzarian16 (talk) 09:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
50. —Dark 09:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
51. Support as the somewhat low content contribution does not bother me, and everything else seems fine. ∙:∙:.:pepper:.:∙:∙ 10:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
52. Support per nom. No issues here.--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 10:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
53. Support - trustworthy admin. PhilKnight (talk) 11:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
54. Support before the page fills up. Level headed, even-handed, amazingly useful to all other content contributors, guides lost lambs into the fold, doesn't witter and had nothing to do with the Liverpool debacle. Haploidavey (talk) 11:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
55. Support EotR's content contribution tally is comparatively low but the edits are of good quality: more pertinently, her understanding and application of the rules - and general all-round clue - are excellent. Plutonium27 (talk) 12:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
56. Support - I've seen this editor around and they are of good temperament and knowledge. Should be wonderful with the tools. Good luck! Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 12:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
57. Certainly. No alarms, and no surprises. GedUK  12:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
58. Support - Calm, sane, smart, funny, well-meaning. Anthony (talk) 12:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)√
59. Support - I have never had the happiness to personally know this editor, but she seems to be calm and sensible; her contributions show a valuable degree of cluefulness, maturity and quality that I am quite impressed with. :) You have my warm wishes for the best. Love, Clementina talk 12:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
60. Yeah, why not? And I see Nakon has taken the IAR question this time... StrPby (talk) 12:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
61. Support - as per User:Beeblbrox and others, clue-full and experienced. Off2riorob (talk) 13:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
62. Support per the obvious reasons cited above, and that the candidate's adminship will be a net positive for the project. Add me to the "thought she was already an admin" list as well. Good luck, UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
63. Support Elen provides sage and calm advice in situations that are often heated. I believe she would be a very positive addition to the admin crew. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
64. Strong Support Enviable temperament, this editor also appears to wield a mighty clue. I'm happy to extend my enthusiastic support. Strengthened support as per answer to Q9. --j⚛e decker^talk 15:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
65. Support. I've been looking forward to this for a long time! I first encountered Elen when I raised a problem at AN/I. She not only took an interest in the thread there, but became actively involved in the pages that were under dispute. In so doing, she very substantially improved the content, and did so in the face of a lot of disruptive editors (those who are worried about content creation, please take note). She also showed excellent judgment in dealing with the dispute, and repeatedly gave me useful advice when I asked for it. I support with the strongest of enthusiasm. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
66. Support For the exact opposite reasons of the Oppose and Neutral below. This project has to stop handing out admin mops as rewards for good content creation, and start encouraging admins that are willing and able to maintain a working cooperative civil environment for great content creators. EotR is very capable, policy-literate and sensible - all the important traits. --HighKing (talk) 15:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
67. Support TNXMan 16:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
68. Support. Per everyone else, plus seeming admirably level-headed. Rd232 ^talk 18:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
69. Support. Per everyone above. Good editor in all ways, active and quite experienced. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 18:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
70. Not just joining the snowball, but Support for quality and wise input on most occasions when i see her signature. Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 18:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
71. Support Why not? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 18:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
72. Support Yes, yes, yes. (By the way, I agree we need more content contributors as admins but the tools aren't going to run out). Fainites ^barleyscribs 19:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
73. Support <cliche> Really thought she was one already. </cliche> — e. ripley\^talk 19:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
74. Support Tyrol5 [Talk] 19:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
75. Support: She'll be a good administrator. Wayne Olajuwon chat 21:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
76. Support, I know that "thought you already were one" is cliche, but in my mind if I have been assuming you were an admin all along, then you must be striking me as having the qualities required. ---Taelus (Talk) 21:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
77. Support <joining the cliche band wagon> Thought she was one already. </cliche> Seems a good candidate for the mop. Jarkeld (talk) 22:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
78. Appears to be a sensible editor who will likely be a sensible admin. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
79. Support, You will make an excellent admin.Malke 2010 (talk) 23:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
80. Per above, best of luck. Ajraddatz (Talk) 00:18, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
81. Support a nice lady. Frankly to oppose this candidate is to oppose your mum. MtD (talk) 01:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

    Oi! Watch it young whippersnapper :) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

    Don't be cute Grandma. That's sort of flippant attitude which can turn a successful RfA into a grisly RfARB. MtD (talk) 10:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

82. Support with bells on. Bishonen | talk 01:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC).
83. Support Oh my word, yes. Rich Farmbrough, 01:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC).
    
84. Support Absolutely! Great editor with a fantastic attitude and knowledge of how the 'pedia works. Dreadstar ☥ 02:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
85. Elen seems like a sensible editor, and a few more sensible administrators wouldn't go amiss. Malleus Fatuorum 02:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
86. Support Seen good things from this editor. Lots of people I respect think she'll do fine. I'm good. Hobit (talk) 02:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
87. If you've worked as a complaints officer in local government, and have experience in dealing with children, then you're admirably equipped for adminship. MastCell ^Talk 04:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

    Well put!! Antandrus (talk) 04:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

88. Per everyone above. I think this generates an infinite loop with Mkativerata's support :) T. Canens (talk) 04:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
89. Support Perfect temperament, excellent attitude, and knowledgable. I always find her comments valuable. More content would be a bonus, but it would be churlish for me not to support for that reason alone. --RexxS (talk) 05:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
90. Support – Definitely. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 05:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
91. Strong support. Extremely well qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
92. Support – An honourable and constructive administrator! What a breath of fresh air after the recent embarrassing machinations by those prominent non-constructive incumbents the project would be so much better off without. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
93. Support She will fit the job. Special Cases ^{Spit out your confessions,vandal} 07:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
94. Strong support. bibliomaniac15 07:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
95. Support. Most definitely. No qualms at all about supporting this candidate. -- œ^™ 07:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
96. Support. Yes, absolutely. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 09:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
97. Support. Excellent attitude. Reflected in Q6. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
98. Support. I had assumed she already was an admin.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 10:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
99. Support Keepscases (talk) 12:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
100. Support. See my comments after my oppose for reasoning. J Milburn (talk) 12:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
101. Support - no brainer !vote. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
102. Support -- oh hell yeah. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
103. Support - Great temperament. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 13:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
104. Support. Seems sensible enough in my encounters and, though we haven't always agreed, she's always backed up her opinions and kept a cool head. I'm sure if she puts as much care and consideration into her admin work as she has into various ANI threads and other discussions, she'll do a great job. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
105. Support - Very even-handed, with enviably neutral temperment. The only reservation I might have is perhaps undue humility. Not only did I think she should already was an administrator, I think she should have been one for a rather long time by now. John Carter (talk) 15:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
106. Support per The Coming of The Roads [9] ...Modernist (talk) 15:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
107. Support. Lovely whimsical job of answering the questions. PhGustaf (talk) 16:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
108. support --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
109. Support Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
110. I guess I should support due to her answer to Keeps.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
111. Support Absolutely, per most of the above, particularly the positive comments about her temperament. I completely agree. —DoRD (talk) 22:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
112. Seems like a well-rounded candidate. ceranthor 22:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
113. Support --iGeMiNix 22:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
114. Support - I believe that Elen's here for the right reasons and won't abuse the tools, or the project. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
115. Support - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:28, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
116. Support - seems level-headed and is an effective editor. Won't abuse the tools, and should be a net positive to the admin corps. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:30, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
117. No objections, thanks for the answer to my question.  Sandstein  06:47, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
118. Strong Support I was more than willing to support you before you answered my question, which you did answer satisfactorily. I changed my level of support to "strong" after reading your answer to question 9. It is the most thoughtful, insightful, intelligent, and coherent analysis of Wikipedia civility I have ever seen. Well done. Your eloquence and thoughtfulness set a high bar here, one that I one day hope to reach, and one the community should strive for. Sven Manguard _Talk 07:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
119. Support. Somewhat lacking in content contribution, but otherwise a good candidate. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:58, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
120. Support Usually makes sensible comments on ANI in complex situations. Her level-headedness and experience in dealing with people in real life are highly desirable assets and outweigh any qualms on content contribution. Mathsci (talk) 09:58, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
121. Support Don't see any problems with this editor and no reason to believe they wpould abuse the tools, also I don't subscribe to the must have tons of content work in main space as a reason of oppose, when your here long enough you know how article creation and editing works. Mo ainm~Talk 10:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
122. Support, will make a good admin. Mjroots (talk) 13:38, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
123. Support, I've found her level-headed and well-suited to the tools. Also (contra some of the opposes) find her take on the civility policy refreshing and welcome. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
124. Support, cliche as it may be, she isn't already?? Long past time to fix that. Also love the answers to questions 9 and 10. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:17, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
125. Support -- No concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 17:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
126. Support, per my struck "Neutral" below. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
127. Strong Support - Need common-sense admins who will call a spade a spade when dealing with the various miscreants who often abuse wikipedia, and who realize the odd abrasive attitude isn't the end of the world. Oh, and don't act all poncy and above themselves. I'd wish you luck, but you don't need it. Skinny87 (talk) 20:33, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
128. ↑ What he said. I'm normally cagey about RFA candidates with a lack of content experience—I think it's generally hard to understand the internal dynamics of Wikipedia without experience of patiently explaining to someone why no, the article wouldn't be improved by a long discussion of their pet theory—but, although I can't recall any conversation where I've ever agreed with you, you understand what we're trying to do and how we're trying to do it. – iridescent 20:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
129. Yo Apoyo Opposes don't convince me. What we need is people that do use common sense. Diego Grez (talk) 21:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
130. Support. No reason not to give her the Mop.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:53, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
131. Support - Garion96 (talk) 23:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
132. Support Thoughtful, insightful, practical and fair. (olive (talk) 03:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC))
133. Support likely net positive. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
134. Support Your experiences on Wikipedia and in real life have prepared you well to handle administrative duties. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 14:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
135. Support - Well qualified candidate. Derild4921☼ 15:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
136. Support - partly because her user name strikes a chord. Deb (talk) 15:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
137. Support excellent contributions. I also love the answer to question 6. Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 17:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
138. Support Seems like a good candidate. Campbell Drive (talk) 19:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
139. Support wiooiw (talk) 19:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
140. Support. The candidate is helpful, experienced and mature. While I'd prefer additional content-building experience it's clear that Elen has made meaningful contribution to several articles. I'm confident Elen will be a rock-solid admin. Majoreditor (talk)
141. Support- Certain to be a net positive with the tools. Reyk _YO! 21:43, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
142. Support I have seen no problems when I have seen the candidate around, and I believe that she will do a good job as an admin -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
143. Support Definitely trustworthy. Steven Walling 01:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
144. Support Of course! Like so many others, I thought she already was an administrator. Also, I am favorably impressed with the answers to questions. --Orlady (talk) 01:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
145. Support Looks good to me.  Frank  |  talk  09:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
146. Support An ideal candidate. Xanthoxyl ^< 11:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
147. Support—seems like the candidate will make an excellent administrator. –Grondemar 12:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
148. Support - per all above, basically, but I particularly like the liberal attitude to WP:IAR demonstrated in the answer to Q4. Robofish (talk) 14:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
149. Support; as someone who does a lot of CSD work, it makes our job easier if pages that are clearly not going to make it get deleted without requiring us on NPP to find another shrubbery and chop down the tallest tree in the woods with... a herring!!!! (read: set up an XfD) Seems like this candidate is willing to use common sense, which is really all I want to see in an admin. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
150. Support. I see no reasons not to. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
151. Support. No major problems here as near as I can tell. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
152. Support mainly for answers to Q. 6 and 9--SPhilbrickT 17:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
153. Support I see no glaring reasons not to support this candidate. Strikerforce (talk) 20:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
154. Support - seems like a reasonable person. Good luck with the tools! BOZ (talk) 22:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
155. Support. Jafeluv (talk) 08:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
156. Support. Smart, good writer, insightful edits, with the proper, even-keeled, on-line personality to be an administrator. We need more like her. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
157. Support. Yes, trustworthy. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
158. 'Support. Seen the candidate around and I have been duly impressed Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 16:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
159. Definite Support - I've run into EotR multiple times, and have always been pleased with each encounter. Helpful, knowledgeable, experienced, patient. EotR has been, for quite some time, one of the people on my watchlist that I follow to "watch and learn" from the way they carry themselves on Wikipedia. ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 17:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
160. Like...duh! Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
161. Support. Girlwithgreeneyes (talk) 22:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
162. Support: A great candidate. - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
163. per Mkativerata. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 23:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
164. Support - Count me in, as the I find the handful of opposer's arguments are unconvincing. Best wishes on your adminship! Jusdafax 02:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
165. One of those people who I can trust to always make sense. I agree the lack of article edits give me some pause, but that's been overcome by the general feeling that this is someone who knows where her towel is, and can be trusted to use commonsense in dealing with problems. - Bilby (talk) 03:23, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
166. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
167. Support: She's not an admin already? I'm surprised. Kansan (talk) 16:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
168. Support. This editor's track record makes this a no-brainer for me. Lack of article edits bothers me not at all (still chewing on how that has become such an important litmus test for administrative activities - discussion on that left to another venue). --Quartermaster (talk) 16:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

     I think that a renewed emphasis on quality content contributors in the RfA process is entirely appropriate. In this case, I am supporting Elen for the perceived quality of her content edits, not so much for her quantity of content contributions. She has a writer's bias, and that's ultimately one of my personal RfA criteria. Process, procedure and rules are important to achieving WP's goal, but it's important to remember they are only the means to the real end: quality content. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

169. Support Per candidate's exchange with Wehwalt below Vodello (talk) 16:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
170. Support I don't poke my head in this neighborhood very often, but I'm glad I did on this occasion. I may be superfluous here, but I would have hated to miss it. Elen seems very sensible to me based on prior observations, and sense matters. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
171. Support. Highly capable candidate with sound judgment. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
172. Support - per everyone at the top of my support :) - Dwayne was here! ♫ 21:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
173. Support Err... she isn't already? hm... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I guess I'm that jerk who is the first oppose. You just don't have enough content contribution for me. Looking at your edit count and percentages, I see that less than a quarter of your edits are actually to articles. We're here to work on the encyclopedia, not spend all our time at the admin boards. I simply cannot support a candidate who spends so little time editing articles. Apologies. AniMate 08:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

   That's fine, no need to feel like a jerk. I know it's important to some people that admins have a lot of content creation. I do think the bit I have is good, and I understand how bloody annoying it is to have someone vandalise, revert or otherwise trash your offering, which I think is the actual important thing for an admin - my view of a great deal of the admin function is that it's there to keep the decks clear so content creators can go on creating. However, you (and I expect others) will have a different view, which you're entitled to express without anyone calling you a jerk (even yourself). --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

   I don't know whether it's appropriate for a supporter to respond to this (so please delete if this is a faux pas), but in my statement of support I mention Elen's "intellectual integrity." I would agree with AniMate that admins need to know how an article is created and put together as a readable whole, but in my experience, Elen understands this very well. She can step into a troubled article, very quickly get up to speed on what the content issues are, read the sources and understand them, and offer deft solutions to handling the presentation of the material in a way that balances POVs. This is the kind of thing that's hard to show with diffs, because it's a process, not a single comment to be taken in isolation. She has a holistic understanding of articles: not just the mechanics of procedure, but how an article should serve its readers. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

   I'm certainly willing to consider articles she has used her "holistic understanding" on. Which articles are you talking about? AniMate 13:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

   Perhaps you could be more specific about what skills in handling content you see as potentially lacking? Other supporters may have more accessible or apt examples than those in my experience, but I would want to address your concerns thoughtfully. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

   I think AniMate is looking for specific examples of articles where she has used her 'holistic understanding' to take an article to a better place. Either through her talk page comments or through the addition of content. (I know, you're not obliged to do this sort of research, but you did make the offer!) --RegentsPark (talk) 14:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

   No, I'm glad to do it, because this question has also been raised even by Elen's supporters and needs to be addressed. But my notion of 'holistic understanding,' which seems to be scaring the horses, doesn't lend itself to providing limited examples, as I said. I too would be concerned about an admin who didn't know how to write an article — if I didn't have experience of seeing how Elen thinks, um, holistically. So I guess I was asking AniMate what skills writing articles requires and develops, so I could point to talk pages and specific content edits where these are evidenced. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

   I know what Cyn is thinking of - when we worked on Glossary of ancient Roman religion I actually did very little editing of the article. My contributions were mainly on the talkpage here and the current talkpage. So for example, how to structure the article [10], differentiating the content [11] (incidentally, I wrote most of the one sentence content where the topic already had an article), suggesting approaches to a mass of primary sources which were not rendered in particularly effective English [12], accommodating that mass of info on the talkpage [13], keeping the editor who provided all the useful but problematic translations of primary sources on board with the project [14], suggesting an approach where scholarly views differ [15], also where there was disagreement about whether to include an element (same diff), getting everyone to focus in on actually writing a paragraph of content [16]. Hope this helps.Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

   Helps a lot. And shows that the old adage they also contribute content who haunt talk pages (I might not have got it exactly right) has legs. --RegentsPark (talk) 15:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

   It does help, but I'm still not seeing nearly enough with article and article talk to support. Sorry. AniMate 00:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

   No worries. I get where you (and SandyGeorgia and the others) are coming from. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

   Oppose Feel the nomination is premature. More content work desired.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)Moving to neutral

2. Oppose - I'd also like to see more content work in main space. This is a tad premature. Jonathunder (talk) 22:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

   Strong oppose. I wondered how long it would be before this happened. Elen is unreasonable and aggressive, a drama lover, and, despite the fact she works a moderate amount in copyright/non-free content areas, has a poor grasp of our copyright policies. I could find specific examples if people are interested. I don't often comment on RfAs, but this one is more than worth opposing. J Milburn (talk) 10:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

   I'm interested, since you appear to be the only person so far with this opinion. Aiken (talk) 10:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

   That is an incredible charge you are making without providing diffs. So yes, I'm interested too - please provide some of these "specific examples" otherwise your oppose feels rather... vengeful. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 11:18, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

   Hi J Milburn. I totally agree I've been learning copyright over the course of this year, so if you go back there will be times that my opinion was wrong. I do have a concern that some of those working in the copyright area seem to be setting themselves up not just as copyright lawyers, but as judges in copyright court cases (eg. we cannot possibly say definitively that X logo is PD due to insufficient creativity without a court case. All we can say is that in our opinion it seems likely - different thing).

   We had a dispute which SlimVirgin has referred to recently - I've avoided referring to that because I didn't think you would want it raising, but since it is clearly what you are referring to, [17]. To anyone reading this thread, please bear in mind that J Milburn is arguing from a wholly theoretical point of view, with no actual connection to the subject, and I am basically asking him to provide third party evidence (from papers by psychologists etc) that supports his case. I do not think he is arguing from experience. However, it all went horribly wrong, someone else thought he was serious (as to experience), I should have stopped long before I did etc etc. For my part, I can only apologise that it did lead to at least one other person thinking he was serious, which caused J Milburn serious distress.Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)(BTW, do keep reading - it carries on two threads down, starting with me saying I was having a stupid argument (it was - I was being stupid and should have stopped!!)

   Well, that was a very reasonable answer. Thank you. As to the issue of when poor calls have been made, I don't have time to trawl through Elen's contributions, but I was thinking of this discussion when I wrote it. I have seen other mistakes/poor calls, though I freely admit that I have also seen good work in that area from Elen. I stand by my oppose, but yes, myself and Elen have shared strong words in the past. Perhaps this is just the luck of the draw, but our interactions have always been fairly negative... J Milburn (talk) 11:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

   I see a fairly fraught discussion on a highly emotive topic, but it was by no means one-sided, and I think "unreasonable and aggressive, a drama lover" is unfair. What it looks like to me is a discussion that was intended in good faith by both parties, but which perhaps went a bit too far in a theoretical/practical mismatch. I see no malice from either side. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

   This edit was another time we bumped into each other on copyright grounds (though I admit that was a horrible discussion over a very specific detail of copyright law- we actually had to update a policy page afterwards with what we'd found...) but I got the distinct impression you hadn't actually read the discussion. What you concluded was not in any way disputed... ("You" being Elen). J Milburn (talk) 11:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

   As to the headshot, that was new information to me so I filed it away. As to the Italian aircraft thing, I wouldn't have quoted that if you'd said what I said, and I'd said what you said. For the uninitiated, the pic is taken from an Italian Air Force bomber over Barcelona. Italy (in common with the rest of Europe) starts copyright term from the date of creation, and at the time photos only got 20 years. US law always started copyright from the date of publication, but the latest Act gives a copyright term to unpublished works, which have protection in the US provided they were not PD in the source country in 1996. Now normally for US copyright, the 'source country' is the country in which something was first published - so J Milburn was having a problem because the image was not published until the Italian airforce made their archive available a year or so ago. However, for unpublished works, US law defines the source country as the country in which the author or rightholder is a national or domiciliary. I knew this (I'm more familiar with the Berne convention and European law anyway), and I assumed J Milburn did as well, because the PD-Italy template is clear that images created before 1967 in Italy are PD in the US, and says nothing about publication because publication is not relevant. However, he didn't, which caused all the discussion. He has since gone on to amend the PD-Italy template so no-one else thinks the image needs to be published for it to apply.Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

   Well, yeah, the confusion was as to whether it was Italian or Spanish law that applied- I didn't know, and no one else seemed to have much in the way of evidence, just lots of assertions that "it would make sense" if it was Italian law. Hell, if you'd come to that discussion saying the things you just said, it would have been over a lot quicker. In any case, you're right that it's hardly an example of you being some kind of demon. I've had a think about this over lunch, and I read my own comments again, and I have come to the conclusion that it is completely unfair for me to oppose you like this. Frankly, I think any enemity (if that's the right word, I can't think of a better one) between us is stupid. We had one disagreement, which ended up a little messy. You're clearly here to help the encyclopedia, and the work you've done with copyrights is certainly a good thing- we would very much be colleagues in that regard if you were active a year ago, say. I do less than I used to now. The fact you've just educated me in this discussion shows I was certainly unfair to accuse you of being incapable. As for my assertions about your aggression, that actually seems a little silly now I've thought about it. I think we're just unlucky- we really got off on the wrong foot. Consider my oppose withdrawn, and I apologise for the accusations. J Milburn (talk) 12:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

   Thank you. That is so gracious. You have my respect, it takes a really thoughtful and strong person to do something like that. I do think we got off on a horribly wrong footing and it was downhill all the way after that :(. Hopefully we can move forward in a better relationship. And maybe I can explain things in a more concise manner occasionally (long-windedness is the curse of being a public servant I fear), because you're right, I just didn't join the dots with the Barcelona thing. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

   Can I just say that this is probably the most refreshingly nice thread I've ever seen in an RfA oppose section. Kudos to both of you for it. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

3. Oppose I do not think her stance on blocking policy is appropriate, see discussion here. Seems to have a view on civility that differs from our rules, and fear that she will impose them unilaterally through unblocks as a cowboy (or cowgirl) admin, something we have seen too much of recently.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

   Hi Wehwalt. That conversation was kind of personal to Malleus. He keeps getting into trouble because admins take exception to what he says to them. What I'm trying to reassure him of is that (should I ever become an admin) I'm not going to block him just because he sounds off at me . If a content discussion has descended to swearing or sniping, then yes I am going to wade in and tell everyone to can it, take five, and then start over more productively. And I expect there are times when I would block someone for something that falls under the heading of civility - using racist insults, or just cussing everyone continuously (after they've been asked to stop) for example. But, and I'll be honest, I don't think there is a lot of point in blocking a regular editor for what he said to another regular editor a couple of hours previously in a heated discussion. I'd rather try and turn the discussion round to productive - or at least a better method of dispute resolution. As far as I read from the civility policies, blocks are a last resort, rather than the first tool out of the box. Do you really disagree with that? I'd be interested to discuss this separately with you.Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

   I do disagree with that. Being on the receiving end of such comments (and I worry less about the both guys going at it than one guy going at it) is not conducive to keeping editors. I see no difference, from the likely effect on the user, between saying "you are a racist" and "you obviously haven't been comfortable since Edward Bennett Williams integrated the Redskins", for example. Frankly, I'd rather have a few F-bombs used, the word has lost its effect through overuse. While I credit you with good intentions, I think I will stay with my oppose. Doubt it will make the difference, but hopefully it will remind you that there are many ways to insult, and the form of words should not be the key. Your comment on Orangemike's talk page demonstrates that I tell you nothing that you don't already know. I do not pretend to be immune from incivility, having picked up 15 opposes for it at my successful RfA, but it's something I work on and I'm not a candidate for anything. Right now.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

   As you wish. I do believe this may be more your problem than mine (I, for one, have never ridden anything larger than a seaside donkey), particularly as saying 'you are a racist' is not the same thing as racist abuse, at least where I come from. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

   Thanks, the final zinger makes me much more comfortable in my oppose.--Wehwalt (talk)

   I beg your pardon!!! First you intrude on a conversation, misread a comment about my own experiences as a complaints officer and somehow come some weird conclusion that I want to do away with all civility policies. Then you accuse me of being a cowgirl (in a way that was clearly intended to be insulting, not an hommage to Dolly Parton). Then you misread another comment and embark on another wild set of speculations because you of the mistaken opinion that racist abuse consists of telling someone they are a racist. Finally, when I point out that this whole house of cards is coming out of your own head, not out of anything I wrote, you take it as a personal attack and say you're glad to have me confirm your suspicions. All I can say - again - is that this is not a problem of my making, and I do not think there is anything more I can do to resolve it at this juncture. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:24, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

   I think the admin you'll make is shining through at the RfA I wish you a much-needed good luck.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

   I think it's shining through as well, but clearly we're not seeing the same thing, else there would have been no need for your pointed "much-needed good luck" remark, following on the heels of your "cowgirl" aspersion. All we need now is for GWH to join in this column and we'll pretty much have a full house. Malleus Fatuorum 20:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

   Malleus, you are entitled to your views. So am I. What GBH has to do with this thread escapes me.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

   Enough! You guys want to fight over hospitals in Swindon or a bike shop in Manchester, you can do it outside. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

   I've switched to support because of this exchange. I think several misunderstandings have gone down in this series of comments, and Elen did the right thing by dropping the hammer and subsequently ending it. I don't think Elen is a drama monger, but I don't think she'll take bullshit either. Vodello (talk) 16:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

   Oppose per Wehwalt. Vodello's diff is also worrying. --John (talk) 12:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC) Stricken per answers to q4, q9 and q10. No oppose-worthy concerns remain for me. --John (talk) 06:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

   John, where's that? I don't see a comment by a Vodelo on this page.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

   Thank you John. I appreciate you taking the time to return and read the whole screed. One thing I would say is that I'm far from perfect, and if in future you see me make a stupid remark, don't hesitate to call me on it. BTW, did you intend to move to neutral or just withdraw your oppose - you're struck in oppose and support at the moment.Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

   this one - Vodello's comment is in the neutral section number 4 - Off2riorob (talk) 13:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

4. There's no magic number for me, but I like to see more significant contributions to audited content in candidates. (further) -Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
5. Q4 reflects a dangerously overexpansive interpretation of IAR. The reference to Fox to justify this interpretation is bizarre. Townlake (talk) 05:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

   Oddly enough, I would agree with you in virtually all cases. CSD criteria are tightly drawn for a reason, and I would not like to see them enlarged. See [18] [19] and [20] - I actually brought another editor to ANI prior to this instance, for doing exactly the same thing. However, at ANI I was told that it was OK to use a {{delete}} template to request an IAR deletion, which is why I used it. As to the Fox thing, I guess you had to be there. It was at the time of creation of Wikipedia:Child protection and everyone seemed to be at DEFCON-1. It was a very unusual set of circumstances - normally I'd just have sent the thing to MfD and let it run its course. I can't see it happening often. I do see the reason you would have the opinion that you do though - IAR deletion is concerning, and really shouldn't happen, and in this case I expect there is also a smack of censorship.Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

   My takeaway from your response is that you could be talked into abusing the tools, even where you know you shouldn't. This RFA is going to pass - congratulations - and all I can really ask is that you be cognizant of the dangers in this area going forward. Townlake (talk) 14:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

   I still don't see that as an abuse of the tools (by the admin who did the deleting), but I will certainly take your advice. IAR is a perilous course, and goes very much against my normal way of doing things. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

6. Oppose The massive proportion of Wikipeida namespace edits strikes me as rather bureaucratic. The editor has twice the number of WP namespace edits as mainspace edits. Something is fishy to me. Ronk01 talk 12:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

   What you see is correct - this is why most of the commentators above are citing a lack of article edits as a reason to oppose. I expect you might yourself, as you seem to major in serious article work. As I have said, that this is because my interest is in how the project runs, how it governs itself, how it makes decisions: I never came with a list of articles I wanted to create. Could you elaborate a bit further on what you see is 'fishy' as I do think it's a bit of an unreasonable thing to say. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

   Perhaps fishy was not the best word. I have simply never felt comfortable with editors who claim to be interested in the process. I know that Wikipedia is becoming a bureaucracy (I'm a part of it myself as a reviewer/rollbacker and MEDCAB mediatior) But process admins have always frightened me. Ronk01 talk 18:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

   Fishy was a very poor choice of word - I definitely have no fins :) I read archaeology at university at a time when the 'New Archaeology' was all the thing. Instead of great kings and mighty armies, we developed a concept we called 'subsistence farming anarchists', which described how pre-Iron Age society worked. It wasn't anarchy at all, it was a group of people who have a very tight alignment of purpose, and who make and develop a culture together, without appearing to have the leader culture that emerges in the Iron Age. Wikipedia has no leader culture, it has no legislature, what it has is a common purpose, and that fascinated me. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

7. Oppose. I would prefer not having admins who have shown a predisposition to make unnecessary non-constructive and/or snarky commentsGimmetoo (talk) 17:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

   At least not until they've got the keys to the executive loo do you mean? Malleus Fatuorum 17:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

   Now now. He's probably worried that us ladies will use all the loo paper and leave our false eyelashes in the sink. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

   When I was a student I had a summer job one year cleaning out portable toilets, the large ones that get taken to events. I can state categorically that the female toilets were always in a far worse condition than the male toilets, so maybe he has a point. Malleus Fatuorum 23:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

   I worked a few shifts in a pub in central Edinburgh and can vouch for this being true. Although it's borderline original research of course. --John (talk) 03:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

8. Oppose More article writing would be preferable. You can't gain a proper understanding of "how the project runs, how it governs itself, how it makes decisions" without much involvement in content creation. Epbr123 (talk) 09:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
9. Oppose I reviewed the candidate's contributions during October 2009. Most of the contributions were to WP:AN and WP:ANI. For someone who is not yet an admin, this is not a good sign. Then there was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge. This seemed to be a significant failure of WP:BEFORE as the topic has great notability but the candidate did not even seem sure what the topic was about. Perhaps the article was poorly written but we require better due diligence in such cases. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:23, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

   If I recall, it was kept as no consensus after those who knew something about the subject finally, after long promise, almost turned up some sources - no wait!! What's this? If I look at the article now (A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge) I note there's still no citation to show that it actually is "an internationally recognized standard" in project management, and the only references are still to itself. No worries with WP:GNG there then. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

   I think we could start a club for articles that were kept through AfD in spite of failing the WP:GNG -- and that still fail the GNG. My personal favorite is National Register of Historic Places featured properties and districts -- kept in October 2008, but I've still yet to see any coverage of the topic outside of Wikipedia. --Orlady (talk) 22:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

   Yeah. I suppose that one at least provides a set of redlinks for buildings that ought to have articles. I'll write the one on the Bacardi distillery if Wikipedia will pay for the field trip :) Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral: Sorry to be the first nuetral, but would like to see more than 1500 mainspace edits before we give you the mop. Great Job anyways, and best of luck. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 01:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

   She does have more than 1500 mainspace edits. "Article 1587 22.97%" Secret ^account 01:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

   Not many more, but I don't use automated tools, so I'm quite slow. The only thing I can say is they were all good 'uns :) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

   Neutral. It has become increasingly important to augment the admin corp with content contributors first and foremost. I don't see any reason to Oppose, but I can't Support. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

   Thanks for fixing threading. I'm confidently expecting at least one oppose because my markup sucks:) Further to the discussion above going on between Cynwolfe and AniMate, can I ask whether the activities I have listed [21] here represent something that is of assistance in creating content? I could do very little editing on that article, because I know very little about the subject and had access to pretty much zero sources, but it was a subject that I found fascinating, and I really wanted to see a good article emerge. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

   I appreciate the value of your talk page contributions, Elen, but I am looking to support candidates who have had to deal with issues involving articles they have primarily built or edited or are actively involved in editing, as that is an area that needs more beef and understanding among the admin corp.[22] Talk page help is always needed and appreciated, and is often where the real work happens, but it's very different to have an article you've built come under fire by vandals, trolls, and POV-pushers. Keep up the good work! (PS, if you get an oppose for your markup, criticism of my frequent typos will be right behind :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

   Thanks for replying. I understand where you are coming from. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

   I highly value Elen’s editorial input. She is a great resource for editors seeking guidance or clear interpretation of wikipolicies and guidelines. She’s like a consultant editor. Here’s a perfect example. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 17:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

   I see your point, but would suggest that because a candidate is otherwise suited for the role that their lack in a particular area should not be held against them - realising that you are not opposing, just not supporting. It would be great if they were also a strong content producer, but since they are not then we should look only to those areas where the candidate does contribute? LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

   Moving to Support per 1) thoughtful reply to my question above, and 2) far lesser qualified non-content-contributing candidates are getting through RFA with no evidence that they will use the tools as thoughtfully as EoR evidences (a disturbing trend) or that they have experience in areas where the tools would be useful. I see no indication that EOR will become one of the wheel-warring, uninformed, abusive chatterboxes who contribute to the three-ring circus that is ANI; her response to my question demonstrates thoughtful conscientousness, maturity, and real-life experiences that will bring much-needed value added to the admin corp. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:38, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

   I'm...I don't know what to say, because I know you've got such strong feelings about the need to be a content creator to really "get" the project. I just hope I don't let you guys down.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:10, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

   Don't worry-- if you do let me down, this isn't this cowgirl's first rodeo :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

   Neutral Not enough mainspace edits for me to feel comfortable. Regarding Neutral #2, I do not think it is necessary to stack the admin decks with content contributors, and certainly don't feel the need to do so in order to "take back ... the Project" (see here). However, I'd like to see a bit more than what Elen has shown to date. Undoubtedly this will pass, but I wish she had waited three more months or so.Switching to oppose--Wehwalt (talk) 18:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

2. Neutral. I have often seen Elen provide very insightful comments, and her observations are often spot on. What's preventing me from supporting is essentially this recent "unworthy comment", to a frustrated new user who may or may not have been here for the right reasons (whatever those are). decltype (talk) 23:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

   Yeah, this is what I mean about the 'wit' that sometimes doesn't work. The guy had his article about his ad agency deleted by Orange Mike (who doesn't like ad agencies at all), and on eventually being told by Mike's talk page stalkers and Wiki Project Business that he had pretty well no hope of an article about his ad agency ever staying on Wikipedia, his final response was I will leave you folks to it, including the marvellous final line "I see there is a movement to reduce the relevance of the site as a reference tool for the masses, well except in the case of second-rate sci-fi, publicly held Behemoths and the nearest Medieval Times." The response intended irony, but of course it just came out rude and OrangeMike twapped me for it. If you think it's an issue, you are quite right to raise it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

   Neutral Lack of mainspace content contributions, and "Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out." brings up a yellow flag. Vodello (talk) 04:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)Moved to support! Vodello (talk) 16:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

   That was in response to an editor whose only contribution was to spam a business in which they had a clear COI, and then leaving in a huff whilst attacking a featured article in the process. Elen's comment may have been blunt at best and unncessary at worst, but I can't say the sentiment wasn't shared by the community. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

   I know that was likely the case, but it still gives me a reason to be concerned about maturity or temerament. Vodello (talk) 21:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

3. Neutral. Got the most important part to my question correct—the need to personally verify—but I was actually looking for an even stronger comment. WP:Dispute resolution if followed correctly pretty much directs that other forums be tried first before disputes are brought to ANI. Taking this into account, accusations of "forum shopping" at ANI should be taken with a special grain of salt. If no "forum shopping" occurred that may actually be a greater cause for concern. Anyone planning to involve themselves at ANI should understand this automatically. The dismay an editor might feel who has followed guidelines but then is accused for doing so should also be understood. Lambanog (talk) 12:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

   Thanks for feedback. I can see exactly where you are coming from here. I have to admit, I was defining 'forum shopping' as 'hawking it round the noticeboards, Jimbo's talkpage etc,' not as having previously tried mediation or held an RfC or RfC/U, as most forum shoppers seem to actually avoid dispute resolution, since it requires compromise from both sides. If someone came to ANI and there had been a previous RfC/U which recommended that editor B refrain from xx action, then it would be correct to report the violation. If there is an RfC/U going on at the time (as in the recent Gavin Collins matter), one would have to make a judgement call - does one effectively pre-empt the RfC by taking some action, or should the report be considered premature as the community has not yet decided whether xx action is problematic.Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

   The version of WP:Dispute resolution I'm looking at further down includes relevant noticeboards, wikiprojects, and policy talk pages as valid places to seek resolution not just those forums listed in the Dispute Resolution infobox like EA, 3O, RfC, Mediation, etc. While an editor whose interpretation is repeatedly turned down at such forums could be interpreted to be forum shopping or canvassing, simply showing up at these venues if the dispute is relevant to them should not be taken against an editor, especially if no clear resolution was arrived at or, more to the point, no clear resolution was enforced. Another editor here has expressed the opinion that lack of content contribution is a serious hole in an admin's profile. I would concur even for ANI simply because if one has not contributed content, one has likely not gotten involved in a content dispute and has not had to use dispute resolution and gotten acquainted with all its defects. I have already asked you a question so will not trouble you further with another optional question that needs answering for this RfA but, if you haven't actually had to use dispute resolution beyond a noticeboard, a question you should try answering even if only to yourself is to rank the effectiveness of dispute resolution forums citing their pros and cons. There is a reason ANI is active while EA isn't and if someone wants to avoid RfC as much as possible there are valid common sense reasons that an ANI participant should know to make an informed judgment about the merits of editor actions. Lambanog (talk) 04:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

   I think you are making an extremely valid point here, both about the need for admins to be familiar with the dispute resolution process, and that some of our dispute resolution methods are less effective than others. I have several times been a party to a mediation that never started because one of the parties would not agree - in several cases, I was notified of the rejection before I was notified of the proposal to try mediation! This is really helpful feedback, thank you. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

4. I hear a "jerk" here and a "Ooo yeah!" there so I don't care. --Jeffwang16 (Talk) (Contributions) (Email me!) 03:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

   Heh Secret ^account 00:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

   Jeffwang16's first language is Spanish. I've dropped him a note, I'm not sure this came out quite how he intended.Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Mixed him up with someone else. Sheesh! how to feel a numpty. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:32, 25 October 2010 (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.