Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Eliz81

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

Eliz81

Final (62/0/0); Originally scheduled to end 07:24 22 November 2007 (UTC). Nomination successful. --Deskana (talk) 10:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Eliz81 (talk · contribs) - I am absolutely delighted and honoured to nominate Eliz81 for adminship. As her admin coach, I feel she is more than ready for the added responsibility of the sysop bit. Eliz joined us just over a year ago in October 2006 and started off as a wikignome and vandal fighter par excellence. However, it wasn't long before she became involved in the most diverse of areas. She's been a regular face on AIV for a long time as many admins will attest. Her requests at WP:UAA and WP:RPP are always of the highest calibre and her analysis of situations is detailed and usually spot-on! She has also worked on username policy, has weighed in at AfD many times and is a regular newpage patroller.

Though she has worked as a vandal fighter, her edits in that area show a person who takes time in dealing with petty vandalism, especially in cases where a new editor may have put a foot wrong. Rather than slapping down a boilerplate warning, she will often be found leaving a message specifically targetted for that editor. Especially with new editors, there's nothing more off-putting than a boilerplate warning or a jargon-laden, cryptic message, and Eliz takes the time out to be kind and patient and encourages newbies to find their feet.

Her article-space work tends to be gnomic; she can take an unsourced article, sit down and put in the research to get proper citations and turn a mediocre article into a great one. She has a broad knowledge of policy and of where and how to apply it (and when not to!). Even when discussions turn heated, Eliz always stays cool, calm and polite throughout. She also has a super sense of humour, something which is sometimes lacking in battle-weary vandal-fighting types.

It has been an absolute pleasure to have been her mentor and I believe she will make a superb administrator! - Alison ^❤ 06:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Co-nom by User:Anonymous Dissident -- I am proud to be able to present to the community for consideration Eliz81. I have known Eliz for quite some time now, and every interaction I have had with her has not only been positive, but has shown me time and time again that she has a strong understanding of policy and has demonstrated that she will make a very fine administrator. She is also trustworthy, approachable, civil, and has been on the project for quite some time now.

As Alison notes, Eliz's requests at RFP can almost always immediately be filled without glancing at the history, and her reports to UAA are always well thought out and inline with our username policy, as are her reports to AIV. Hopefully, she will soon be able to fill these requests, and block without requesting.

All in all, I truly believe that Eliz will be an absolute asset to the ranks of en.wp admins, and will use her qualities and skills as a vandal fighter and an editor in this area of her involvement on Wikipedia to her maximum ability and potential. Thank you for your time. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I'm so honored to accept the nomination from you both. ~Eliz81^(C) 07:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: I plan to help out primarily in the areas I'm most familiar with. For the mainspace, I'd like to help keep Speedy deletion, Articles for Deletion, and expired prods neat and tidy. I will also handle requests at Requests for page protection. In the vandalfighting department, I will also help out over at Administrator intervention against vandalism and block users as appropriate. I will help block inappropriate usernames over at Usernames for administrative attention, but I want to make one point clear about this: whatever my personal views about inappropriate names, I realize that the policy is currently up for debate and I will respect community consensus on this. With Alison's excellent admin training, I also have an understanding of when to make other types of blocks, for incivility, edit warring, personal or legal threats, trolling, and sockpuppetry for the appropriate durations. I'll make sure to start out with more clearcut cases for deletion, blocking, and protection, and slowly move to more complicated issues. I also will be sure to ask for help and advice from experienced administrators as I learn my way around. I will keep a close eye on the administrators' noticeboards at WP:ANI, WP:AN3, and WP:AN to pitch in when needed, and also on other admin backlog areas like unblock requests. Maintaining a NPOV at all times is of the utmost importance to me, and I will only use my tools in cases where I have no conflict of interest. Although the tools are not required for this, I hope to also present a welcoming and friendly face to newbies who are looking for help. When I was new, I asked admins CattleGirl and PeaceNT for help. Their responsiveness and kindness encouraged me to stick around. I believe that admins' diplomacy and kindness can go a long way towards retaining solid editors for the project. Sure it's wielding a mop, but cleaning up is rarely simple and straightforward...

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

A: In terms of article writing, I tend to be more of a WikiGnome. I really enjoy the little maintenance tasks like spellchecking and creating templates and patrolling recent changes and new pages, but also bigger things like adding references and copy editing articles. I love tracking down difficult-to-find references, which has served me well for reliable source-digging for AfDs, insuring that notable stubs get kept, and removing those pesky {{fact}} tags from articles. As a contributor to Veropedia, I'm most proud of the cleanup I did to Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart and World War I. On my userpage, I've linked to some diffs where I did some major article cleanup, such as at Eddie Murphy, Kimono, and Serge Conus. In terms of pages I've created, Cincinnati Playhouse in the Park, Benjamin Waterhouse, The Wendys and Little Girls in Pretty Boxes are among my favorites. The majority of my edits (less so the majority of my time) were made with the assistance of automated tools, such as vandal fighting with Twinkle and article cleanup with AWB. But I always take each edit very seriously and try to give thought-out responses, especially in user talk and projectspace.

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: By far and away, I've had pleasant and dare I say, enjoyable interactions with other editors. The most stress I've had was easily with several ANI incidents dealing with threats of self-harm that required off-wiki action (forgive me if I don't provide diffs here.) Also, when I reported User:M.V.E.i. at ANI there was some unpleasantries here, but the user was eventually blocked for a year and the conflict stayed pretty much on the board. I've been involved in policy debates at WT:U and WT:UAA, which has been heated on occasion but overall, constructive (the most 'personal' it got was probably this exchange). Very recently there was a bit of drama around User:VanTucky's RfA involving Alison, K Scott Bailey, myself and others on both the RfA page and our respective talk pages, but that seems to have settled down now. My general approach to conflicts has been the same throughout, and will be the same in the future. Disagreement is inevitable on here; conflict is not. I take care to write and rewrite (and rewrite) my comments to other editors to make sure I'm being fair, clear, and if possible, nice. I try to always comment on the content, not the contributor. If I'm mad or upset, I take a breather. I avoid escalation by emphasizing everyone's good intentions, and trying to stay constructive instead of being critical. I also find it helpful to focus on achieving consensus instead of my particular point of view. I've been most pleasantly surprised at how well WP:AGF works. When I've been annoyed or felt attacked, I take it as a personal challenge to write the editor the nicest note possible about it to diffuse the situation and achieve a resolution. It's turned what could have easily been unpleasant confrontations to happily resolved issues. I think this conversation is a good example of a discussion that ended very well that didn't have to.

4. An administrator has blocked an editor and you disagree with the block. What is the policy about unblocking and do you intend to adhere to it?--MONGO 18:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

A: I certainly intend to adhere to the policy outlined in WP:BLOCK. I will always speak to an administrator first before undoing their block, except in the most unusual circumstances where they've clearly made some sort of mistake (like a username misspelling.) But even then, I'd probably still want to alert the other admin first unless it was absolutely time-critical. There's a good chance one of us might have information that the other does not. And if I disagree with a specific block, that still doesn't mean I'm right (or that the other admin was right, either), and discussion is the way to go.

General comments

• See Eliz81's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for Eliz81: Eliz81 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Eliz81 before commenting.

Discussion

Support

1. See teh nom statement. Is absolutely qualified. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
2. Nom Support - absolutely. Go Kitteh :)- Alison ^❤ 07:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
3. Finally! *counts on fingers* 3 months since I offered! Dihydrogen Monoxide 07:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
4. Strong support :) Spebi 07:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
5. I can't wait. -- John Reaves 07:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
6. Support - another good candidate! --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
7. Support I have no concerns here. Happy to give my support. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 09:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
8. Support Should have saved myself some time and just gone "per nom", but a review of your last 1500 contributions, 500 odd deleted contribs and talk page indicate nothing but an excellent user who clearly will benefit from the tools. Best Wishes. Pedro :  Chat  09:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
9. Suprt this candidet 4 admin! Mek her ceiling cat alreddy. ~ Riana ⁂ 10:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
10. I have had very positive interactions with her in the past. She is very friendly, is not likely to abuse the tools, and is experienced. She 100% meets my criteria. Good luck!--SJP 11:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
11. Support excellent candidate in my experience. ELIMINATORJR 11:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
12. Support User has the patience of a saint. :) PeaceNT 13:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
13. Strong Support Reviewing her contributions, didn't see any breakdowns of civility even in bad circumstances, good knowledge of Wiki-Policy, and looks like she will definitely benefit from the tools. SirFozzie 14:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
14. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 15:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
15. I strongly support this nomination. I originally encountered Eliz81 when she requested her user page to be protected at RFPP. Since then, I have monitored her, and I've found her to been a great user with high knowledge of policy. Acalamari 17:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
16. Strong support. I've had many positive experiences with this editor, and learned from her. She will surely be a great admin. Bearian 17:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
17. Support. See no problems. Civility noted in recent dispute. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 17:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
18. Absolutely. Maser ^(Talk!) 20:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
19. Hell yeah seen around a lot, dunno why someone would oppose--20:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phoenix-wiki (talk • contribs)
20. Support. Why not?! Jack 20:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
21. Strong support. A consistently patient, dedicated editor who will make a great admin. --krimpet⟲ 22:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
22. – Steel 23:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
23. Support Definitely! GlassCobra 00:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
24. Support unlikely to abuse the tools. Seen her many times at WP:CHECKUSER. NHRHS2010 talk 01:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
25. support JoshuaZ 02:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
26. Support Contributions show a knowledgeable, prolific, level-headed, and refreshingly friendly editor. A pleasure to support. Maralia 02:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
27. Miranda 09:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
28. Support--MONGO 09:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
29. Support No worries at all. --TeaDrinker 10:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
30. Support Users contributions have been extensive and positive. I can't see any reason to deny her the mop (why is getting a mop here a positive while elsewhere it is considered a negative...) spryde | talk 13:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
31. Support. Having had experience interacting with Eliz81, I can say that she is communicative, reasonable, and understands policy: the perfect combination of attributes for an admin. Mangojuice^talk 14:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
32. Support The first reason is because she was nominated by someone I respect (which doesn't matter as I look at the admin specifically. I looked through the edit summary. Very nice. The answer's to the questions, and a fairly low conflict level, seems to also be level headed (good for an admin). --businessman332211 15:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
33. Support - Absolute and unqualified support. - Philippe | Talk 17:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
34. support then hide... --D_arkF_alls ^talk 00:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
35. Support. Everything here looks good to me. I'm more than comfortable trusting this user with the tools. SorryGuy 03:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
36. Go Kitteh - Trust the nom, candidate's record looks good, I think she'll be a welcome addition to the team. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 06:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
37. Support, record is all positive. bd2412 T 08:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
38. Support DUH! Jmlk17 11:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
39. Support - A good candidate for using tools with trustworthiness.Lustead (talk) 13:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
40. jump onto the pile support! henrik•talk 16:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
41. Support - Okay, yes, can be trusted with the tools I think. Dedicated editor. :-) Lradrama 20:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
42. Support Good candidate, who can be trusted with the tools. Will be a strong asset. --Bfigura ^(talk) 00:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
43. Support As per Alison ,track is very good and has been very active since June with over 5000 mainspace edits.Great coaching.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
44. No-brainer support Seen her many times at WP:AFD. More than qualified. Blueboy96 07:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
45. Good luck. - Rudget.talk 13:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
46. Strong Support Well I haven't met her, but the contributions are good, the attitude is good, the numbers (this is support vote #46 I believe, plus edit count &c.) are good…and here's a four leaf clover just for luck. :) I look forward to working with you. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  17:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
47. Support this candidate seems both ready and capable. Modernist (talk) 17:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
48. Support - I don't see any reason not to.-MBK004 (talk) 19:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
49. Support Seems like a good choice. • Lawrence Cohen 00:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
50. Support I like what I read --MoRsE (talk) 01:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
51. Support No major problems that I can see, apart from lacking an endorsement from a WikiProject... One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 02:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
52. Support Its all been said. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
53. Support - was just coming to offer you a nom myself and found this link on your userpage - I've checked over your contribs and think you'll be fine. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
54. Daniel 23:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
55. Meow. That is, support. Good, well-rounded candidate. --Kyoko 00:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
56. Support A strong candidate. VanTucky ^Talk 01:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
57. Unbelievably Strong Support Most people know, of course, that I go through the edits of any RfA candidate I offer an opinion on, and offer an explanation for my opinion. Sometimes, when a good friend is up for RfA, it can be frustrating, because of course I want to support, but at the same time, I will not let my friendship get in the way of objectivity, and I will be honest if I don't think a friend is ready. Even though I did review Eliz's contributions, I did not have to, because I've known her for several months, and I've actually watched her editing patterns, knowing she was being coached by Alison. I also highly respect both Alison, and Anonymous Dissident, as administrators, and as editors, and they both have excellent judgment. Just the fact that the two of them are nominators, says a lot, even without knowing anything about the candidate. However, I happen to know Eliz, and I think she is one of Wikipedia's kindest, most generous editors, always careful, always concise, able to explain things during heated conversations in a tone that is able to diffuse tempers. She is quite knowledgeable about policy and guideline, and at the same time, exceedingly tactful when required. I have watched the AN/I threads she has been involved in, and she's always very careful to state her expectations, but also mindful of policy. The same thing goes with WP:RFCN, and WT:U, where she has participated in a number of discussions about usernames. Even when others may sometimes be blunt, or abrupt, Eilz is always polite, careful, measured, explains her reasoning, and does not take things personally. I honestly believe that Eliz will make a wonderful addition to the current administrative team, and I look forward to congratulating her. Ariel♥Gold 07:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
58. Support Eilz from all that I seen looks to be a highly qualified candidate, She has a good understanding of policy, aside from patrolling vandalism and XFD's she also preforms many mundane maintenance tasks like fixing links to disambiguation pages and adding templates to their relevant articles.▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡^Talk 23:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC) (was going to say "everything" Ariel said but she beat me to it ;))
59. Support - Well rounded, well trusted, well well! -- Jreferee t/c 01:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
60. Support Capable and respected user. --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 06:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
61. Support per nom. Sarah 08:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
62. Support - great candidate, will do absolutely fine. WjBscribe 08:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

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.