Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ElinorD

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

[edit] ElinorD

Closed as successful by Cecropia 00:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC) at (108/1/0); Scheduled end time 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia policy and culture. Elinor is a strong and positive contributor to the content and climate of Wikipedia. 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)


[edit] Questions for the candidate

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

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: My biggest number of edits have been to Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia: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.[1] [2] 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:[3], [4], [5] ? 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 FOCUS! 02:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
A: I do not see any reason why having the tools should in any way affect my participation in policy conflicts. Obviously, I would not use the tools in any page I was actively involved in editing, except in cases where it is clearly permitted, such as blocking vandals. Regarding the ArbCom rulings and community consensus, policy pages are general, while the ArbCom deals with specific cases. The ArbCom does not make policy, but it is not inappropriate for an ArbCom ruling for a particular case to find its way into a policy page. An example can be found at the meatpuppetry section of the page on sockpuppetry, where a reference is made to a case in which it was ruled that "for the purpose of dispute resolution, when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sock puppets, or several users acting as meatpuppets, they may be treated as one individual." I haven't checked, but I imagine that ruling has been in the policy page for some time. I don't think it was a case of the committee inventing a new rule. My guess is that it was probably a common sense approach, based on what was already happening, and that it continued to happen after that ruling, the main difference being that there was now something written down which could be appealed to.
Except where Jimbo directly appoints someone, the committee members are elected by community consensus, presumably because the community trust their judgment, fairness, and good sense. One could say, therefore, that while the community doesn't necessarily endorse every ruling from the ArbCom, the community has endorsed the right of the committee to make rulings. A seat on the ArbCom is not permanent, and if one member tries to push through a really crazy ruling, it's unlikely that the other members will let it pass.
I have not studied the history of the 3RR policy and certainly haven't waded through all the arbitration cases. So this is purely hypothetical, given as an imaginary example. If the 3RR policy page said that one could be blocked for making a fourth revert within 24 hours, some administrators might begin to block people with a record of edit warring and a history of 3RR blocks who timed their fourth reverts to fall just outside the 24-hour period. There might then be an arbitration case brought against a chronic reverter who timed his reverts. The committee might make a ruling that users with a history of edit warring and of 3RR blocks may be blocked even if they space their reverts so that the fourth one falls just outside the 24-hour period. That would be common sense, and would reflect what was already happening. Administrators would continue to act as they had been doing, and the ArbCom ruling would probably be mentioned on the policy page. In such a case, the policy would have developed organically, by normal practice of respected and trusted users who understand policy well. The policy would not have been made by the ArbCom, but their ruling would be useful to point to, to help people understand existing policy. It would be pointless to argue, "I'm going to make my fourth revert at 17:48, and I can't be blocked, because the ArbCom doesn't make policy."
As for edit wars over policy pages, I view them the same way as edit wars in general. Edit warring is bad; people shouldn't edit war. However, I have seen different kinds of edit wars. The kind that involves a few decent editors with opposing POVs using up the three reverts to which they think they are entitled until an admin comes in and locks the page, forcing them to start communicating, does little permanent damage, though it's still wrong. Everyone rightly feels a bit ashamed at the end, and it all ends amicably enough. The kind that involves abusive edit summaries and toxic talk page posts does far more lasting damage, and the venom that is spewed makes it far more difficult to regain a constructive editing environment than the fact that A reverted B and C reverted A. A few weeks later the multiple reverts are buried deep in the history; the unkind comments and unfair accusations are still visible. I saw an edit war a few months ago which led to a page protection and a few red faces from decent users, but the protection forced everyone to start talking about the article rather than about each other, and consensus was achieved. If it doesn't work, other things can be tried — such as asking a third opinion, an article Request for Comments, or mediation.

Optional question from AldeBaer

5. Since we all started out as readers of this encyclopedia, I'd like to know what your three (or more) favourite articles are, ideally with a short explanation as to what especially you like about them.
A: That's not an easy question to answer, and I'm afraid my attempt will not be very inspiring. Approaching Wikipedia as a reader rather than as a writer, I would say that I find some of the articles about different animals to be highly attractive. I have recently been looking at such articles as Cougar and Elk (Cervus canadensis), simply because I saw something about those articles on user talk pages that were on my watchlist, and followed the links. I like them because they're easy to understand, nicely laid out, and with good illustrations (freely licensed, I'm happy to say). I don't edit them, as I lack the specialist knowledge. I also like articles about historical figures, and often find myself just browsing such articles. Hannah Primrose, Countess of Rosebery is one that I consider particularly fine. I also find it very useful to be able to consult articles about things that are relevant to me personally at a particular time, such as Extraction (dental). (As an experienced Wikipedian, I know that it's prudent to check the history for possible vandalism.) But I'm afraid that in many cases the articles that I like to read are chosen more from personal appeal than from a critical evaluation of their quality.

[edit] General comments

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


[edit] Discussion

  • I have removed this from the RfA main page since there are no answers to questions. I may give support once they are answered (leaning towards support now) G1ggy! Review me! 23:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I haven't had much interaction with this editor prior to this week, so I didn't comment early in this RfA. Since then, the nominee's approached me twice regarding some fair use issues. It's quite encouraging to see a nominee who is willing to seek assistance and recognize when they might be in over their heads. Fantastic quality in an editor, even more so in an administrator. Everything else I've seen gives me zero reason to feel this nominee will make anything but a great administrator. --Durin 01:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I commented in support of ElinorD previously, but I would like to comment again. I have interacted with her on occasion, and I simply think she is wonderful. In my correspondences with her, and in seeing her correspondences with others, I have noticed that she is kind and looks out for others. I especially liked when she worked to get a user unblocked who undoubtedly was editing in good faith, but got on the wrong side of copyrights ([6][7][8]). She, as she has stated above, is already an active vandal fighter ([9][10][11]) and would do well with the tools. When she makes mistakes, she admits it graciously ([12] [13] [14] [15]). Further, she has contributed to areas surrounding copyright ([16] [17] [18]) and, when she has questions, is willing to ask them ([19] [20] [21] [22]). I think she will be a great admin and have no concerns about her having the new tools or having the ability to access deleted revisions. Go Elinor!  :) --Iamunknown 00:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
    • While it would be impossible to read such kind words without pleasure, and they're very much appreciated, I think I should warn you that I did steal a biscuit from the pantry when I was seven. So perhaps you shouldn't be quite so enthusiastic! :) (Thanks anyway.) ElinorD (talk) 22:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Support

  1. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. Sane. And a writing editor as well, which is a bonus.--Docg 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)
    How did that number get there?--Anthony.bradbury 20:02, 9 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 (talk) 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 (holla) 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 Wikipedia. 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) talk 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 ταλκ 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 (talk) 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 talk 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 talk thyme 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 Talk 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. Waltonalternate account 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 Talk 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 - Wiki me up® 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 to doubt that this person is not well intentioned and would not comport herself to the standards of Wikipedia. I further believe she would make a fine admin, hence my vote.LessHeard vanU 21:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  63. Support Those contribs look Shiny to me! OOHHH! JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 00:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  64. Support Solid editor who gets it and has done great work here. ++Lar: t/c 02:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  65. Support; everything looks good here. Antandrus (talk) 03:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  66. Support for Elinor. A very helpful user in my experience. Marskell 08:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  67. Support: Good contributions and reasonable intervention. Geogre 11:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  68. Support Although I haven't had the privilege of interacting with ElinorD before, I have seen her around in what usually are heated discussions, and I was always impressed with what I saw. So, yes, sure. —Anas talk? 14:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  69. Support per full answer to question 4. Reason I asked was, I've seen vandal fighters instinctively use the tools to apparently settle content disputes with less established users who were not obviously trolling, and your quick response in those cases lead me to wonder how you'd react in further instances with the buttons at your command. I hope that we can continue to work together to settle policy differences without resorting to revert wars over minor semantic details.—AL FOCUS! 18:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  70. Support Miranda 20:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  71. Support. We can always use another good faith administrator and someone with skills in mediating and diffusing conflicts within the project. CLA 23:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  72. Support. Will make a good admin. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  73. Support - Have seen her around and see no reason not to trust her with the sysop bit. --Richard 08:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
    Support. Excellent editor, clearly trustworthy — we need more admins like her. --88.109.203.48 10:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
    Anon IPs are not permitted to vote in RfA's. Please either sign in, or open an account, if you wish to participate. Thank you. LessHeard vanU 12:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  74. Support, despite having some misgivings because of her willingness to treat an ArbCom decision regarding 'attack site links' as policy exempt from the normal need for consensus; I'd be hypocritical if I used this as a "litmus test" against an admin nominee as has been done to nominees on the opposite side of the issue. *Dan T.* 13:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  75. Support No reason not to. Whsitchy 16:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  76. Support. Well-suited to the task. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 17:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  77. Support. Good 'pedia builder cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 00:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  78. Support Why not???--James, La gloria è a dio 02:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  79. Support per Phaedriel. —  $PЯINGrαgђ  03:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  80. Support I have seen this editor around and support without hesitation. daveh4h 06:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  81. Support Sometimes we've agreed at WT:NPA, sometimes we haven't. But everything I have seen from this editor has been thoughtful, mature, and with the best interests of building an encyclopedia in mind. I'd be happy to see her with the tools. Serpent's Choice 14:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  82. Support - Just had a very constructive discussion with this editor, and from what I see she'll make a fine admin. SalaSkan 15:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  83. Support A great editor. It is time to give her the mop. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  84. support as someone who clearly understands both the rules and the reasons for them. DGG 19:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  85. Support I'm not too worried about the reasoning provided by the opposers. This user has demonstrated a need for the tools, and clearly understands Wikipedia policy. I see no reason not to give ElinorD the tools. Nishkid64 (talk) 19:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  86. Support Are those space pants you're wearing? Because your edits look out of this world! ~ Infrangible 19:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  87. Support I thought you were one. Oh well, that will be rectified soon enough. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 20:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  88. Support Absolutely first rate. I have no reservations about this candidate. Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  89. Support- Great editor. Eddie 22:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  90. Support FeloniousMonk 23:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  91. You mean ... you're not one? ;) You have my full support. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 00:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  92. Support' - Good user, lots of reverts, many good edits, lot of barnstars, and armed with Twinkle. Support here. Cheers, JetLover (Talk) (Sandbox) 01:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  93. Support - This is precisely the sort of editor who should have the mop and bucket. Wikipedia needs more like her. We're lucky to have her. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  94. Support - I've seen some of her work with religion-related articles and believe her to be a solid editor. Majoreditor 03:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  95. Support No reason will not make a good admin. Davewild 11:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  96. Support. We need more model editor admins. Sandstein 18:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  97. Support, a trustworthy, hopeful rolemodel admin. :). --SWEETCARMEN♥ 20:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  98. Support Oppose votes below are simply silly. I've seen nothing but excellent contributions by this editor.--MONGO 20:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  99. Support - mostly because of my obsession with powers of ten. I am confident that ElinorD will be a responsible admin. GracenotesT § 22:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  100. Support WP:100, and this user seems to be level-headed and contributes to the article space as well. --Kyoko 23:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  101. Support. I'm liking this user's calm yet willing to learn attitude outlined in the answers to the questions and in Durin's commentary. Would make a good admin. - Zeibura Talk 00:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  102. Support very qualified --rogerd 04:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  103. Support, well done, good luck! The Rambling Man 17:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  104. Support - fine contributor who would benefit from admin tools. I have no worries about this users judgement in the time I have seen their contributions. Cheers! -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 18:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  105. Of course I support, per nom. ;o) Vassyana 19:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
    This has got to be the most tardy nominator support to date. --Kyoko 12:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  106. Jaranda wat's sup 16:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
    Support Pile on, and on, and on. The attitude and courtesy is well received and builds confidence in the users future work. JodyB talk 18:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
    Sorry, can only support once. (see support #44 above) :) —Kurykh 19:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  107. Support great contributor who would be an equally good admin. -- Vision Thing -- 19:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  108. Support with the caveat that I would like to see ElinorD display more individuality -she has a tendency to usually agree with admins. Not that that's bad, but I look forward to seeing her come into her own and become more independent and assertive once she's an admin herself. Well done Elinor!Merkinsmum 21:29, 12 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 ταλκ 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 [23][24][25], has contributed to forums regarding copyright [26] [27] [28], is empathetic and looks out for other Wikipedians [29][30][31] and has reverted vandalism [32][33]. 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)
  1. Oppose- too little experience. RuneWiki777 16:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
    • What, in your opinion, would constitute "enough experience"? --Iamunknown 16:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
    • This user has 6,114 edits, all with summaries, spread over mainspace and namespace and made over six months (less one week). How much experience do you need to see? Because the majority of current admins were promoted on less than that.--Anthony.bradbury 19:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
    • The tally is currently 94-1. We don't need to bug the one opposer, do we? Riana ⁂ 05:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
    Oppose No contributions to Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam or Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles. --Calbrina36 20:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC) the preceeding comment appears from a SPA that places this particluar oppose on various RfA's Agathoclea 20:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC) This oppose comment was placed by a now indefinitely blocked user. --Kyoko 21:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
    Oh, Elinor! [Deep reproach.] No automobiles? What were you thinking? Bishonen | talk 20:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC).
    I love oppose votes like this. Every proper RfA has a couple of totally off-the-wall opposes; without that, you're not getting the full RfA experience. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
    It should be noted that ElinorD would be unfamiliar with the term automobile since in the UK they are known as cars (which I understand you yanks believe are tram trolleys?). Likewise spam is a pressed meat, usually contained within a tin and much favoured as a Monty Python sketch. Her disinclination to join such projects is surely understandable...? LessHeard vanU 22:38, 10 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.
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.