Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elli

Elli

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (183/5/2); Scheduled to end 16:53, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Nomination

Elli (talk · contribs) – Hi everyone. I'm very happy to be back here to nominate someone I think would make a great admin: User:Elli. She's one of the few Wikipedians I've had the honour of meeting in person and I think she'd be a great addition to the admin corps. Elli has technically been a Wikipedian since 2014 but did not become consistently active until 2020. I believe this is more than enough time to learn the ropes of the project – despite how close that date feels sometimes, it was indeed four years ago. Elli has also accomplished something I have not: an FA (1964 Illinois House of Representatives election). She has also created 2 GAs and numerous other articles. My point is that she's clearly here and dedicated to the project. In regards to the more technical side of things, Elli is an experienced page mover and template editor – user rights where it's important for one to be able to follow instructions, not mess things up (or at least fix mistakes when they happen), and require good judgement. I strongly believe that Elli is well-qualified and passes what I look for in an admin with flying colours. I hope others agree. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thanks for the nomination; I accept! Never edited for money and never will, and my alternative accounts are listed here (permalink). Elli (talk | contribs) 16:48, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

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. Why are you interested in becoming an administrator?

A: I enjoy closing discussions and working in technical areas; my capabilities to do both of these would be significantly expanded with adminship. I'd also like to help deal with backlogs in other areas, such as unblock requests, once I'm more experienced and confident as an administrator.

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

A: My featured article is definitely my best writing. I also am proud of my more behind-the-scenes edits; for example, I often help with editing protected templates as a template editor. I like being able to help people do things on the project they can't do on their own, in pursuit of making the editing environment more egalitarian: we should ultimately be equals here, even though some actions need higher levels of permissions than others.

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: Yes, but not recently. A few years ago, I got into a dispute with an editor that got quite heated (the dispute was over the details of how a particular template should work). After sleeping on it, I realized that having such an attitude would get me nowhere, and that I wasn't recognizing the other person behind the screen. I changed my attitude accordingly, we both backed down from the dispute, and now I consider myself on good terms with that editor (and I'm pretty sure they think similarly).

Nowadays, I generally disengage from disputes after a few comments; if my opinion is likely to gain community consensus, then I don't need to badger people into it, and if it isn't, then arguing just wastes time for no benefit. I'm not perfect, but I've avoided getting dragged into anything particularly messy or stressful.

---

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.

Optional question from Gog the Mild

4. What went well or not so well when you took an article through FAC? What was easy or difficult? What, if anything would you change?

Thanks for the question! FAC was overall a smoother process than I had expected. I was worried that people would be rather strict and nitpicky, but while people gave my article tough and honest feedback, none of it felt unreasonable and the reviewers were quite willing to listen and understand my perspective on how I wanted to present information in the article. My experiences with the GAN and FAC processes (both in nominating and reviewing) inspired me to write this (tangentially related) essay about some challenges in writing good/featured content. I don't have particular changes to suggest for the process at this point, though; I'd like to take another article at FAC first (hopefully soon, though it is a good bit of work). Elli (talk | contribs) 17:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Optional question from Toadspike

5. Briefly, could you explain your massive spike in edit count in 2021, and the subsequent drop off?

A: Yeah. I didn't have much going on in my life in 2021 due to the pandemic, so I got quite into Wikipedia then. I started college in 2022 so I've had significantly less time and energy to edit (though I still care a lot about Wikipedia and spend a significant amount of time editing). Also, I've tried to split off some of my semi-automated edits to ElliAWB (note: the name is a bit inaccurate as I use it for other types of semi-automatic edits as well), so that makes the activity on my main account look a bit lower. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Optional questions from Conyo14

6. Hi there, since the last few RfAs have felt like job interviews, I shall ask a normal, easy question done in an interview. Do you have any hobbies outside of Wikipedia?

A: Yeah! In terms of similar projects, I also edit somewhat actively on OpenStreetMap. Outside of that, my primary interests currently are travel and board games. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

7. Are there areas of this encyclopedia you favor over others? (i.e. politics, sports, Science, etc.)

A: I tend to edit about politics, elections, and current events; as a reader I often went to Wikipedia to find out about these topics so I like making sure our coverage on them is accurate, neutral, comprehensive, and up-to-date. However, I don't exclusively edit in those topic areas. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Optional questions from Lightburst

(Note: Q8 and Q9 have been deleted as inappropriate, so skipping them in the numbering scheme. Discuss on the talk page if you must. RoySmith (talk) 22:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC))

Optional question from Hey man im josh

10. Every administrator has areas they choose not to work in, and that's perfectly acceptable. Opinions and interests change over time, but as of now, what administrative areas would you choose to not get involved in?

A: Since I'm not an admin yet, and my interests can often vary, there aren't any areas I can confidently say I won't work in. However, AE is an area that requires a lot of experience, and in which I have none, so I don't plan on making admin actions there without prior experience in user conduct administration. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Optional question from CanonNi

11. Your top 3 edited articles are 1964 Illinois House of Representatives election, GameStop short squeeze, and Fuck. You created the first one and brought it to FA; you also created the second one; but Fuck wasn't created by you, nor does it align with your interest in politics and current events. Could you expand on your contributions to the article?

A: Hah, yeah, thanks for reminding me about that one. At the time I started editing it seriously, I thought it was in good shape and close to meeting the GA criteria; I nominated it for GA and tried to improve it along those lines. This was a few years ago and before I understood the effort truly necessary to bring an article to GA, especially an article one that isn't the primary author on, and unfortunately the nomination did not succeed. If you're curious about the particular edits I've made, you can check them here; it's mostly removing excessive and unsourced content, adding additional sources, and copyediting. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:19, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Optional question(s) from Sodium

12. You list your work in technical areas as one of the main reasons for requesting administrative (by extension interface-administrative) rights on the English Wikipedia. Could you give a few examples of your best work in these areas?

A: Sure. Some of the things I've done include modifying {{Cite tweet}} to check for incorrect dates (based on the Tweet ID), creating and maintaining {{US elections imagemap}} to greatly simplify the process of creating imagemaps for those articles, and editing Module:RfD to make it a bit clearer to newer users what is going on. Much of this work was a few years ago, but I've still continued to edit in technical areas, including helping to implement template-protected edit requests. Elli (talk | contribs) 13:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Also as an FYI, I don't have immediate plans to request interface administrator, though if I end up editing more in areas where that would be useful, then I would request it. I'd want a bit more experience first, though.

13. What are your thoughts on the applicability of the bold-revert-discuss cycle to the technical areas of Wikipedia?

A: WP:BEBOLD is a good principle for general editing, but needs to be weighed against the far greater importance of maintaining stability in technical areas. For a highly-used template, it's a good idea to ask on talk first if one's edits might be even a bit controversial, as a bold edit being reverted would use a lot of server resources while leaving some pages cached in inconsistent states. It's also important to use a sandbox to test edits, even insignificant ones, before editing the main template. This also applies to modules, and even moreso to parts of the site interface (though I don't yet have experience there). Elli (talk | contribs) 13:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Optional question(s) from Adam Black

14. You have quite an impressive history of contributing to articles. Do you plan to continue editing articles alongside your admin work?

A: Yep! I'll still keep writing and improving articles; it's something I greatly enjoy and don't want to give up. Elli (talk | contribs) 13:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

15. I noticed you are also a prolific contributor to Wikimedia Commons and Wikidata and have ten or more edits on at least 28 other editions of Wikipedia. In your opinion, how important is it for the various Wikimedia projects to work together?

A: Collaboration with Commons and Wikidata can be very beneficial, and I've found great value in contributing to both. Sometimes I wish our communities were closer, as we all have similar goals, just different ways of getting there. I will note that most of my edits on other language Wikipedias are due to my work at Commons (renaming files); I am sadly not proficient in nearly that many languages. Elli (talk | contribs) 13:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Optional question from NYC Guru

16. Under what conditons would you block a new user indefinitely?

A: It's important to note for this question that indefinite is not infinite, and while an indef sounds harsh, it does not mean that a new user is blocked forever, with no chance of appeal. Accounts with blatantly inappropriate usernames, accounts that are entirely promotional, and vandalism-only accounts, are all acceptable to indefinitely block as new users (though depending on the severity, some of these accounts may receive a few warnings before a block). However, as they are new users, and might not understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, a block appeal they make would likely be accepted, provided they understand why their past behavior was problematic and agreed not to repeat it. In borderline cases, I'd definitely warn first and/or leave the account to a more experienced admin to deal with. Elli (talk | contribs) 14:14, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Optional question from Robertsky

17. In an attempt to close a requested move discussion, you realise that a recently closed RfC had introduced new guidelines for the article title in question, but its closure does not sit well with you as it may potentially be in conflict with other established policies or guidelines. What would you do?

A: Good question. Consensus can change, and if participants in the RfC identified the existing consensus but agreed to change it, then that would be fine. Regarding page titles, there's a number of different policies and guidelines for how they should be decided, and these are often weighed against each other. For example, if an RfC established a consensus that page titles for a particular topic area should prioritize consistency over using the common name (or vice versa), then while I might agree or disagree with the specifics, I would abide by that result and use it to help guide my closures of RMs in that topic area. Also, important to note that if I feel my opinions on the subject would unduly bias me, I would leave the closure to someone else. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:54, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Optional questions from Carrite

18. In Question 1, when asked about why you want to be an administrator, you open by saying:"I enjoy closing discussions and working in technical areas; my capabilities to do both of these would be significantly expanded with adminship." What, precisely, will be enhanced for you in which technical areas?

A: Editing fully-protected pages (as some high-risk templates and modules are), as well as doing more complex maintenance tasks (such as merging templates following TfD's) are a few examples. Histmerges and complex pagemoves are other technical things I'd like to work on that adminship either enables or makes easier.

These technical areas aren't the only places where I'd use admin tools; discussion closes and other backlog work are what I'm currently more interested in. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

19. Were you shocked, offended, or appalled that someone tried to ask you a question here about one of your userboxes and do you have anything to say about the ones you choose to post on your user page?

A: Nope, it's all good. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:13, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Optional question from Sawyer777

20. happy to see you here! since you're interested in closing discussions, i'll ask an open-ended question about it: what would your process be for tackling a long, complex & controversial discussion?

A: Thanks for the question! I would read through the discussion a first time, then take a close look at the policies and guidelines cited to see if there is a clear policy- and guideline-based consensus. I would then draft a close statement, explaining how I've considered the arguments on both sides and determined the consensus; for a controversial discussion, it would likely be at least a few sentences, if not a few paragraphs. I'd then look over the discussion again to make sure there aren't any strong arguments on either side that I missed (not that there can't be two strong contradictory positions, but I want to make sure I consider every strong argument). If I had missed something significant, I would reevaluate my determination of consensus (and at least modify my close a bit); then I would repeat this process until I'm satisfied that my close accurately reflects all significant points in the discussion. Elli (talk | contribs) 14:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Optional question from Aszx5000

21. You seem a promising candidate and experienced in Wikipedia. If you "owned" Wikipedia, like Elon Musk with Twitter/X, what would you change?

A: Wikipedia isn't a business and isn't (and shouldn't be) owned by anyone; it's a collaborative project managed by a nonprofit. However, if I was put in charge of the Wikimedia Foundation, I'd put more resources towards the community wishlist, towards technical maintenance such as fixing the graph extension, and towards making it easier for editors to access more resources (such as by expanding the Wikipedia Library). Elli (talk | contribs) 14:22, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Optional question from RoySmith

22. While acknowledging Clovermoss's concern about too many questions, I'll ask one I've asked the past couple of candidates: There have been a number of cases over the past couple of years where admins have been found to have violated WP:INVOLVED, or been accused of such and it was later determined not to be so. Could you talk about what WP:INVOLVED means and how you would apply it to yourself?

A: Being an administrator is a position of significant community trust and carries both technical and social power, and it can be immensely frustrating towards other editors if it appears that an administrator is abusing their position to further their side in a dispute (especially as admins have the ability to block other editors). It's important to avoid even the appearance of impropriety and to adhere strictly to WP:INVOLVED: don't take administrative actions in a dispute you're involved in (with the narrow exception of dealing with blatant vandalism). Being accused and then narrowly cleared of violating INVOLVED is still a bad outcome: another editor is still likely frustrated and feels like they have been treated unfairly by more powerful users.

I've already adhered to this principle as a non-administrator: for example, avoiding closing RMs where I've participated, either in that discussion or in past discussions about the same page. I will continue to do so as an administrator, and take extra care to make sure I do not even appear to be violating the policy. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:22, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Optional question from starship.paint

23. Hello Elli, you said above discussion closes ... are what I'm currently more interested in. Could you close any one of the discussions (you choose which!) listed at Wikipedia:Closure requests to show an example of your current ability to close?

A: Not a question, striking. Candidate is welcome to "answer" this should they so choose. Primefac (talk) 17:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Optional question from GTrang

24. Will you be closing AfDs that have a clear consensus to delete?

A: Yes. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:27, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Optional question from Valereee

25. Would you like to address the concern expressed in the oppose?

A: Yes, thanks for giving me the chance to do so. My most recent post on Wikipediocracy, which I assume is the site Lightburst is referring to, was confirming that I am okay with being referred to by any pronouns, which I clarified after someone told me the question had been raised on WPO; other than that, my last post was in November 2023. Lightburst has not said he has any issues with any of the 10 comments I've made on the site, but if he or anyone else does, I am fine with anyone linking to or quoting any of them.

I disagree with much of what happens on the site, especially insulting and doxxing Wikipedians, and since I became aware of the scope of those issues—I was never a regular there—I became uncomfortable with the site and have avoided participating, except for the recent pronoun clarification (which in retrospect may have been better to say onwiki). Elli (talk | contribs) 23:27, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Optional question from Sdkb

26. You mention discussion closing as an admin task in which you are interested. Are there more complex discussion closes you've made that you'd like to share as examples of your work in this area?

A: Yeah. I haven't closed that many difficult discussions lately, both because I've been somewhat busy and such closes require a good bit of work, and because non-admins are generally discouraged from doing so, but one such closure I've made is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shani Louk (while that closure did technically end up at DR, it was for unrelated reasons and wasn't meaningfully disputed there). Elli (talk | contribs) 15:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Optional questions from Josethewikier

27. Hey, congratulations on your RfA. I just wanted to ask you if there's anything you want to express regarding this discussion report?

A: Thanks for the question. I think the 2021 reform, while it didn't achieve many lasting changes, did identify many problems with the RfA process, and I'm glad to see the 2024 reform building on that (though I had been interested in running anyways, the opportunity to try the new system is part of what encouraged me to run right now). If there's something more specific from that article you'd like my thoughts on, feel free to ask a follow-up. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:04, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

28. A hypothetical close friend of yours who's aware of your presence on the English Wikipedia informs you that they would like to create an account. Would you encourage them to? (Ideally please answer why yes or why no as well). Cheers, and all the very best!

A: Yes! I have tried to get people in my life to join Wikipedia as I think it's a fun and worthwhile hobby. Unfortunately, I have had limited success with that, but if a friend expressed interest, I would encourage them to do so. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:04, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Optional question from Idoghor Melody

29. Can you share your thoughts on the importance of accountability and transparency in administrative actions on Wikipedia, and how you plan to uphold these principles in your role as an admin?

A: Of course! Accountability and transparency are both important principles for similar reasons as mentioned in Q22: administrators hold significant power on the site, so even a perception of unfair treatment can be extremely frustrating. To this end, I'll respond promptly to inquiries about any of my actions as is required by WP:ADMINACCT. While some administrative actions cannot be entirely transparent, I will strive to be as transparent as possible and will be happy to answer any inquiries about why I took certain actions (and of course, will try to head off those inquiries by using descriptive edit/log summaries). Elli (talk | contribs) 18:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Optional question from Floq

30. I don't fully understand where the tradition of "candidates can't reply to opposes" came from, but it's dumb, and should really change. So as a work around, here's an opportunity to address the issue raised in Joe Roe's oppose. I can't speak for others, but for me, this is even more optional than usual. But you should be able to reply if you want.

A:

Optional question from User:North8000

31. I'm already a firm "support" but to put it out here, regarding your off-wiki comments noted in the opposes, do you feel that your off-wiki comments were OK, or even meeting the higher standard of "I'd still do the same thing again if not an admin" or "I'd still do the same thing if an admin"? North8000 (talk) 14:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

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

---

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

Support

1. Support – per my nomination statement. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 16:53, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
2. Support Qualified candidate. Lynch44 (talk) 16:53, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
3. Support Sure Queen of Hearts (🏳️‍⚧️ • 🏳️‍🌈) 16:55, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
4. Support Very strong candidate and a good nomination. Toadspike [Talk] 16:55, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
5. Support: qualified, competent, not a jerk, has a need for the tools. No concerns. Cremastra (talk) 16:59, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
6. Support - Back in days of yore, 2001–2007 or so, the notion was that Administrative buttons were "No Big Deal." This was a unique aspect of Wikipedia's ultra-idealistic operational model. The idea was that through decentralization of authority and self-delegation of maintenance tasks, people would step up as stakeholders and keep the site running. If differences arose, there were simple rules to prevent one-upsmanship and dysfunctional behavior; if something was broken in the process, it could be easily fixed. Admins were volunteer site janitors, and the more the merrier — "many hands make light work," as the saying goes.
   For about fifteen years now, the No Big Deal model has not been descriptive of reality. Adminship has become viewed as a sort of cloistered priesthood, with only the most righteous and worthy of Wikipedia's acolytes admitted to its ranks. Apostates and oddballs and troublemakers of the Admin corps from the No Big Deal era have slowly but surely been shown the door or wandered off into the mist — with the occasional melodramatic burning at the metaphorical stake to preserve the purity of the dwindling priesthood.
   Potentially successful aspirants — and we don't have to look far into the rearview mirror to see examples — have spent their entire essence at WP crafting what might seem to be perfect resumés, working tirelessly at mind-numbing quasi-Administrative tasks and placing at the altar their one perfectly constructed Good Article amidst satisfied head-nodding and applause. Duplicity and ulterior motives have sometimes come into play in the process.
   This candidacy of Elli (née Elliott321) seems to me a refreshing throwback to the days when virtually anyone of demonstrable good will towards The Project got the buttons with goofy little votes of 13–0 or 23–2 — because Adminship was a seen as a rite of passage for dedicated WP volunteers. Even if the power buttons were used only sporadically and infrequently, having a broad swath of committed stakeholders to maintain the site and keep it running at all hours was viewed as a positive value in and of itself. I still believe in that principle.
   I've taken a decent look at Elli's editing record and can offer a confident thumbs up to this Wikipedian. Put succinctly: clean block log and no indications of assholery. Not everyone with the Admin flag needs to be Vandal Fighter #1 or dedicate their full days to copyvio investigation or be a master detective of sockpuppetry or a rangeblock technician, or what have you. This candidate with his Old School agenda of working on templates and closing discussions and picking away at administrative backlogs will do just fine. —tim ///// Carrite (talk) 17:00, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

   Think it should be "her Old School agenda", Carrite. Happy days, ~ Lindsay^Hello 17:37, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

   Word from mouth of horse of indeterminate gender at The Site That Must Not Be Named was that all pronouns are swell. If you wanna interpret "Elliott321/Elli" as "her" without any statement to that effect here or there, that's fine. I'll go with "his," which is equally fine. Carrite (talk) 03:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

   "She" is what she picked in preferences, which surely a statement of some sort. {{they|Elli}} →‎ she. —Cryptic 03:26, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

7. Support Very good candidate who has already done a lot of good on Wikipedia. Can see no reason not to trust her with the admin tools. Mgp28 (talk) 17:06, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
8. Support per comments in the discussion section. No red lights. Right away, driver! ——Serial Number 54129 17:03, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

   Although Carrite, thanks for the Gettysburg Address, but any reason for it to be taking up slabs of room here when the discussion area is ready-made. ——Serial Number 54129 17:08, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

9. Wasn't the Gettysburg Address notable for its brevity? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:12, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

   :) heh, indeed. Edward Everett's oration was the original address; he spoke for two hours. One Abe spoke for two minutes. I suppose Carrite's oration will go the same way. ——Serial Number 54129 17:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

   Is this a support !vote, or a comment on a comment on one? (Asking for a friend who is somewhat 'challenged' in such matters.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:35, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

   I imagine the latter, but "Support per the length of the Gettysburg Address" would be quite funny... Queen of Hearts (🏳️‍⚧️ • 🏳️‍🌈) 02:11, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

   Both. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:28, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

10. Support I don't see any issues, so that's a support from me. --Panian513 17:13, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
11. Support —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:15, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
12. Support qualified candidate, no concerns. Draken Bowser (talk) 17:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
13. Levivich (talk) 17:23, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
14. why not? ... sawyer * he/they * talk 17:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
15. Support No issues. — doclys (❀) 17:26, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
16. As above. Happy days, ~ Lindsay^Hello 17:32, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
17. Support per Carrite. Soni (talk) 17:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
18. Support. About time the !voting opened. I did not need two days to ponder support for Elli. Will make a great admin. Good luck! –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
19. Support per above. No concerns at all. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
20. I had the pleasure of working with Elli at Talk:1934 German head of state referendum/GA1. She was responsive, diligent, and thorough. Complete support. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 17:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
21. Support without hesitation. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
22. Support. Not a ****, has lots of clue, great content contribution, I think they'll make a great admin.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
23. Support. Ample evidence of competence. No concerns. Maproom (talk) 17:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
24. Support. Aoba47 (talk) 17:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
25. Mach61 17:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
26. – robertsky (talk) 17:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
27. excellent candidate. —Ingenuity (t • c) 17:53, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
28. Support seems to be an excellent candidate. Thank you for putting yourself forward. Mccapra (talk) 17:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
29. Support. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:00, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
30. Support – definitely qualified to wield the mop. –FlyingAce^✈hello 18:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
31. Support per above Ryan shell (talk) 18:12, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
32. Support. Elli seems very experienced in different editing areas, especially content creation and NPP, which demonstrates how they are ready for adminship. That Tired Tarantula^Burrow 18:14, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
33. Support Good candidate for admin. Thanks for the nomination. GrabUp - Talk 18:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
34. Support. she is definitely experienced enough that she had the mop waiting in a cupboard for a while! JuniperChill (talk) 18:18, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
35. Support Hameltion (talk | contribs) 18:20, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
36. Support. This time I remembered not to dismiss the watchlist notice before not voting opened. Folly Mox (talk) 18:20, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
37. No concerns. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 18:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
38. Solid record, good temperament, evident ability to make productive use of the tools. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:39, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
39. Support Competent, no red flags, unlikely to go on a power trip. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 18:42, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
40. Support Seems legit. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 18:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
41. Support Having had the discussion, there are no concerns here. Aszx5000 (talk) 18:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
42. Support not a jerk, has a clue. AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 18:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
43. Support No issues — DaxServer (t·m·e·c) 18:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
44. Support Not previously familiar with the candidate, but I like her answers to the questions, has the requisite experience and enough reputable admins are vouching for her already. Daniel Case (talk) 18:53, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
45. Support Good luck! Polygnotus (talk) 18:57, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
46. Support I came here fully intending to question the candidate about the relatively high percentage of AfDs she nominated and ended up in a Keep or Merge. But I couldn't find a single case where the nomination wasn't fully justifiable. And more importantly, once sourcing emerged, she was quick to withdraw her nomination, saving everyone's time - a rare and treasured quality among nominators. She knows what she's doing, and we could certainly use the help over at AfD. Owen× ☎ 18:59, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
47. Support Not familiar with her, but she is basically *the* perfect candidate. She gives good responses to the questions and I love the chill vibes of this RfA compared to previous ones. Well, that aged like milk. We can implement all the reforms we want, but I think a lot of the drama has to do with the people at RfA and fixing the format cannot fix the drama it has devolved into. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 19:11, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
48. No objections here ¿eh? Codename Noreste 🤔 La Suma 19:12, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
49. Support Thanks for volunteering. – DreamRimmer (talk) 19:14, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
50. Net-positive! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:17, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
51. Great to see such a well rounded candidate. Ceoil (talk) 19:27, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
52. Support Elli does great work, and I think she'd make an excellent admin. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 19:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
53. Support - per Carrite. Seems competent and personable, with some use for the sysop bit. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 19:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
54. Support - I can't see a single reason not to. Very competent editor, should make an exceptional admin. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 19:55, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
55. Support: Competent, has a clue. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:01, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
56. Since I have nothing to say, this is my default stance. Steel1943 (talk) 20:04, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
57. Support -- Great all-around editor with an excellent, straight-forward style of communication. Elli will do well as an admin. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 20:05, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
58. Support. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
59. Excellent answers to questions, no concerns. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:11, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
60. Support Looks good to me, so I guess I will be number 60 :) EPIC (talk) 20:15, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
61. Support, no glaring issues seen at a few of the past nominations. ✶Quxyz✶ 20:27, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
62. Support Looks good to me. North8000 (talk) 20:46, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
63. Support Legoktm (talk) 20:48, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
64. Support: swell candidate. Good luck and thanks for picking up the mop! ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:01, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
65. Support: Not jerk has clue. jp×g🗯️ 21:07, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
66. Obvious support. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
67. Thank you for your work Elli! Innisfree987 (talk) 21:25, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
68. Support Very qualified candidate. --Enos733 (talk) 21:26, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
69. Oppose – too good, sets the bar too high ;) — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
70. Support Leijurv (talk) 21:55, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
71. Of course. J947 ‡ ^edits 22:25, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
72. Support. No problems here! Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:26, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
73. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:42, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
74. Sup Conyo14 (talk) 23:12, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
75. Support thank you for volunteering and writing such thoughtful responses! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 23:17, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
76. Nardog (talk) 23:28, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
77. Support great editor who has volunteered enough. Thanks for continuing that path. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 23:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
78. Support per answers to questions and experience. NYC Guru (talk) 23:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
79. Support for a thoughtful and experienced editor. Even though they say having to review yet another RfA with no plant editing can cause Plantipedians to go mad. Some even call me mad. And why? Because I dared to dream of my own race of plant-human monsters, plant supermen that would edit thousands of articles and suck blood... 🌿MtBotany (talk) 23:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
80. Support- The questions were answered very well IMO. I have no doubt the candidate will use the mop for good, rather than evil. Good Luck!   Aloha27  talk  23:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
81. Support Undoubtedly the best candidate in a while. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 23:55, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
82. Support: Great answers to questions above. An experienced editor and excellent content creator. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 23:55, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
83. Support - (edit conflict) Meets my basic criteria. No serious concerns have been presented. Merely participating on the website that the lone opposition is presumably referring to, without any clear evidence of serious wrongdoing directly on the part of the candidate, is not sufficient grounds for me to oppose. MaterialsPsych (talk) 00:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
84. Support - now finally a people I can support to after the RFA 2-day discussion period trial. Just a random Wikipedian^(talk) 00:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
85. Per Lightburst. — hako9 (talk) 00:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

    Well, they !voted Oppose. Did I miss something? — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

    I am referring to Lightburst's enlightening comments in the general comments section below, where they indicate their support for Elli [1], before their abrupt change of stance. As a fan LB's work, I admire their ability to focus exclusively on content creation without drama and without stirring shit up. A true beacon of light. — hako9 (talk) 14:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

86. Support An examination of their content seems to indicate they will be a competent administrator. →StaniStani 00:22, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
87. Support net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:49, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
88. Support Sure, why the hell not. Sohom (talk) 01:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

    Confirming that I do not believe that "anyone who posts literally anything on an off-wiki forum is manifestly unsuited to be an admin" as has been expressed by editors in the Oppose section. Sohom (talk) 02:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

89. Support, she's kinda downplaying the {{cite tweet}} module that she came up with.[2] Trust her to close discussions, especially after staying calm through this whole RFA. Good luck, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 01:11, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
90. Support a great editor and will become a great admin! :) – dudhhr ^talk_contribs^she_her 01:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
91. Support I don't believe I have ever had the pleasure of interacting with this candidate. I am however pleased to see a positive energy that will benefit the project, approve of the content work, and am happy to support based on the more detailed review of editors whose judgement I trust. Elinruby (talk) 01:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
92. Support. Really obviously a competent and conscientious net positive. The one oppose is in fact a guilt-by-association error. Various of us "proper Wikipedians", including several admins, and me, and a number of others, often under our regular WP usernames, have commented more than once at Wikipediocracy to take people to task there for demonstrably false accusations, for doxxing, and for other shitey behavior (which often enough is against that site's own lax policies anyway).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
93. Support the candidates answers to the questions are good. TipsyElephant (talk) 02:38, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
94. Support per nom and cogent responses to the questions. Grandpallama (talk) 03:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
95. Support I don't know why you didn't run sooner. Scorpions1325 (talk) 03:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

    You may have meant this as a joke, or posted in the wrong section. An oppose vote is not appropriate in the support section. Please move it to the correct section or amend it.-Gadfium (talk) 04:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

    @Gadfium, you are not regular at RfAs, are you? — kashmīrī ^TALK 07:49, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

    I normally watch them, rarely participate. This is unusual; it's unlike your !vote which was effectively praise.-Gadfium (talk) 09:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

    Yeah, it's convoluted but I read it as "Support, you were already great in 2021 and could have applied earlier". But agree it's not immediately clear. Cheers, — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:16, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

    I have rewritten my vote to avoid causing confusion. Just in case you missed it, the vote originally read to the effect of "I oppose you becoming an administrator because you do such an excellent job, and should have run earlier." Scorpions1325 (talk) 11:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC) See Special:Diff/1227049737 for original. Primefac (talk) 12:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

    I don't think that joining Wikipediocracy alone is a dealbreaker. Some editors use it to circumvent Wikipedia's policies on personal attacks, but Elli is not one of them. For that reason, I still support her. Scorpions1325 (talk) 11:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

96. Support Net positive. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 03:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
97. Support. I recall good past interactions and I'm confident she will make a great admin. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 03:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
98. Support Strong candidate with a good history and an excellent attitude. Schwede66 03:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
99. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:11, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
100. Support. SilverLocust 💬 04:12, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
101. Support Why not? -Fastily 04:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
102. Support. Good candidate. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
103. Support. From what I can tell, I trusted member of the Wikipedia community. — GMH Melbourne (talk) 04:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
104. Support. Glad to see another editor willing to step forward & take the mop. Best wishes. ~ Volten001 ^☎ 04:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
105. Support candidate. their answers to their questions are promising, best wishes to you! Josethewikier (talk) 05:02, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
106. Support Great candidate all around, thanks for running. Dr. Duh 🩺 (talk) 05:20, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
107. Support no concerns. – Teratix ₵ 05:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
108. (t · c) buidhe 05:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
109. Support. Seems to have a clue, good track record and no red flags. - SchroCat (talk) 07:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
110. Support seen them around, they're competent and not a jerk. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_{my edits}) 07:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
111. Support. As this qualified candidate sez, "It's all good!" P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 08:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
112. Support Can't find any obvious problem with the one. Mox Eden (talk) 08:49, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
113. Support Experienced editor, no concerns. Pahunkat (talk) 09:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
114. Support Should make a good admin. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 10:02, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
115. —Kusma (talk) 10:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
116. Support Excellent candidate. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 10:11, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
117. Support Has my trust for the tools. — ♠ Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Sign up for the 2024 DCWC! — Non nobis solum ♠ 10:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
118. Support no issues found^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 10:39, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
119. Support should make good use of the tools. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
120. Support. Has good insight and communication. I trust her decision-making. ––FormalDude (talk) 11:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
121. Support Solid candidate, and I find the lone oppose extremely unpersuasive. Intothatdarkness 12:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
122. Support Being an admin should be easy, not hard. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 12:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
123. Support - No concerns here. I believe this editor demonstrates the necessary experience and temperament and can be trusted with the tools. - Aoidh (talk) 13:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
124. Support Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:07, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
125. Maliner (talk) 14:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
126. Support. Nothing in the candidate's record shows they cannot be trusted with the tools. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 14:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
127. Support - great candidate, no concerns. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
128. Support per the candidates positive contributions to the project. Noting my full endorsement of Carrite's well stated support as well. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
129. Support, looks good to me. DanCherek (talk) 15:49, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
130. Support. I've never met this user before, but looking at their past contributions and their answers, they seem like a prime candidate to me. Thanks,Neuropol^Talk 15:55, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
131. Support — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
132. Support: in addition to excellent content work, Elli has shown high technical aptitude and several use cases for the tools. Most importantly, no temperament issues have been raised. — Bilorv (talk) 16:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
133. Support: an excellent candidate and clearly ready for the tools. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 17:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
134. Support: I initially had my doubts, but I think Elli has shown that they're ready for the tools. They're a good editor, and I trust them to make good calls. Don't let us down El — and fill some DYK queues if you have the chance! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 18:39, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
135. Support - Their answers to questions shows that they can be trusted.Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 18:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
136. Support no red flags, good candidate with productive contributions, good nom. FortunateSons (talk) 19:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
137. Support Great candidate, overqualified, what can I say! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
138. Support You can judge a person by the quality of their enemies. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
139. Support great editor and wants to use the tools productively --JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 20:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
140. Support No objections here. Ternera (talk) 20:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
141. Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 20:38, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
142. Was going to ask a question first, but ... 29 questions and counting!? that seems like a lot, so I won't force you to jump thru hoops. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:39, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
143. Support.—Alalch E. 20:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
144. Support. Finally, an RfA under the new trial system where I can confidently support the candidate. I'm not very familiar with the candidate, but everything checks out for me, after allowing enough time for any skeletons to have emerged from the closet. I think the answers to questions are really excellent (the answer to Q21 is particularly spot-on), and I'm seeing supports from a lot of editors whose judgment I respect. As for the WPO issue, I'm satisfied from comments here and on the RfA talk page that nothing posted there was complicit in anything wrong (and as for having edited Fuck, I clearly remember the old Wikipedia Review trying to find fault with me simply for having mopped up a lot of stuff at Urination). --Tryptofish (talk) 21:39, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
145. Support. No concerns, demonstrated competence. Chocmilk03 (talk) 22:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
146. Support. ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
147. 'Support. Dedicated and has a clue. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:02, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
148. Support - Reaper Eternal (talk) 23:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
149. Support - per nomination, editing history of candidate, and discussion. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
150. Support. I have come across the candidate many times and am impressed with her work. Honestly, I can't think of any reason Elli shouldn't have the tools. Epicgenius (talk) 01:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
151. Support - My new determination of support--- "no indications of assholery". Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 04:58, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
152. Support Trustworthy candidate, will be a benefit to the project with the tools. Spencer^T•C 05:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
153. Support Good candidate. Rzuwig^► 07:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
154. Support' No red flags, apparently adequate experience and suitable attitude. Good luck · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 07:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
155. Support. Candidate appears to possess clue. Stifle (talk) 08:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
156. Support after looking at content creation, logs and responses to people clear they have a clue and found no red flags. KylieTastic (talk) 08:34, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
157. Support, no reason to expect they'd abuse the tools. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
158. Why not? WP:NOBIGDEAL. BilledMammal (talk) 12:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
159. Support. Good track record of contributions, thoughtful and knowledgeable answers to the questions. Candidate seems like she'd be a great asset to the admin corps. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
160. Support.orangkalideres - talk - contribs 17:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
161. Support I often sit out forgone conclusions at RfA, but wanted to support because of the silliness of Pinchme123's oppose, that stating a user's pronoun preference off-site, in context to the user mulling they could have just done it on-site, represents some sort of breach of conduct. Elli's involvement is WPO is obviously minor and mostly in the past. -- ferret (talk) 17:17, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
162. Support per ferret; I was just about to say the same thing only to see that I was beaten to it. I hadn't given much thought to this RfA since the candidate is obviously fit to be an admin, but the particularly weak arguments under the oppose section compel me to support more directly. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
163. Support great candidate in all regards. Unconvinced by the rationales given by opposers. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
164. per nom The Night Watch (talk) 18:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
165. Support -Lionel Cristiano^? 18:21, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
166. Support in opposition to the opposes. I see nothing inherently wrong with posting on the Site That Shall Not Be Named, as indeed several respected admins are occasionally wont to do. Deor (talk) 18:34, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
167. Support LGTM --DannyS712 (talk) 19:11, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
168. Support Would be a net positive for the project. Has done great work in improving various articles. Let'srun (talk) 21:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
169. Support She seems calm, level-headed, and doesn't not appear to be asking for adminship for the sake of adminship. A net benefit to the project, likely an even greater one with additional authority. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

     That should be doesn't appear, not doesn't not appear, but my fingers are getting dumber with age more quickly than even my brain is. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:17, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

170. Support—Kurtis ^(talk) 23:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
171. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 00:09, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
172. Support. I have no qualms with ArbCom summarily desysopping any admin who participates on that site, where I was accused of ripping WMF off over sponsored travel in 2012 (we agreed to give the reimbursement to our photographer to replace their laptop which had been damaged, so the whole trip came out of my pocket). However, the candidate is a dedicated content creator, and I believe she will put the interests of content creators first and foremost. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:27, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
173. Support. The candidate has an extended record of valuable contributions including good content, has thought through why she wants to be an admin, and has demonstrated openness, friendliness, and equanimity during this process, even so far as wanting to run using the experimental delayed-voting format. Having recently joined the Wikipediocracy forum myself, partly in order to be able to object to objectionable posts there (and having noted other Wikipedians in good standing participating there and objecting to posts there), I note the concern raised in some of the opposes but strongly disagree that her membership there is disqualificatory. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:21, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
174. Support. Looks like a net positive with very few negatives. Good answers to the questions, worth a shot. Lulfas (talk) 03:35, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
175. Support Offwiki activity argument is not sufficient to me to not support this request,--A09|(talk) 07:08, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
176. Support. Can't see any reason for concern. Deb (talk) 11:28, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
177. Support -- Per Carrite -- Dolotta (talk) 12:04, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
178. Support. A fine candidate to whom I look forward to passing the new admin baton. Sdkb ^talk 15:38, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
179. Support - Definitely a net positive, and a welcome addition to the mop-wielding corps. Loopy30 (talk) 15:49, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
180. Support Having read through everything, no cause for concern. Alextejthompson (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 16:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
181. Frostly (talk) 16:54, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
182. Support Yay, this is such an easy support. A couple years ago when I was pretty green, Elli gave friendly replies to my newbie questions. We kept chatting a bit and I was struck by her maturity, knowledge, and enthusiasm. I still am! I keep getting struck and struck and struck. Crunchydillpickle🥒 (talk) 17:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
183. Support ―sportzpikachu _{my talkcontribs} 18:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I have communicated with arbcom before voting here. My belief has always been that administrators are here to protect content and content creators. I cannot trust this editor to protect content creators because the candidate participates on an off-wiki website where members excoriate and dox Wikipedia editors. The candidate directly commented in threads where Wikipedia editors were doxed and harassed, and they participated in a thread referring to Wikipedia editors as idiots. In the spirit of proposal 9b, I have emailed screenshots to arbcom and I have tried to format this rationale according to their advice by limiting my comments. Lightburst (talk) 22:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

   Discussion moved to the talk page. Primefac (talk) 09:27, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

   @Primefac, as I have in the past, I object to the practice of moving replies to opposes like this to the talk page without moving the description of the !vote itself. Per the talk page header, the discussions that should be moved there are those not germane to the candidacy. That applies to disruptive/badgering replies to opposes; it does not apply to legitimate responses. It should be stated for the record here — not on the talk page — that the responses to this oppose are germane to the candidacy, in that they seek to discredit this oppose's rationale. We should not be moving discussions to talk for the sole reason that they are replies to an oppose or that we want to reduce the length of this RfA, as that elevates the opposition rationale held by one editor over the rebuttal held by almost everyone else. Sdkb ^talk 15:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

   I do not necessarily disagree with you. The entire conversation was hatted with an editor still attempting to add content I was more concerned about making sure everything was properly copied across. I will see about extracting the relevant bits of information, though I am extremely busy tonight and tomorrow and will likely not be able to take care of it until Wednesday. If you feel comfortable doing so I have no issue with you doing it yourself. Primefac (talk) 18:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

   Would you see it fit for us to move the entire oppose to the talk page? Aaron Liu (talk) 21:25, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

   I for once prefer it when editors feel welcome to !vote any way they like without the threat of a prominently placed challenge. Sure, challenges are allowed, but I really like it if they happen on Talk, not right on the RfA page. People have had two days to work out any differences before voting started – let's now keep the voting page as stress free as possible for both the candidate and all the participants. — kashmīrī ^TALK 22:02, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

2. Oppose Ivan (talk) 22:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

   @Иованъ, do you care to explain why you are opposing this candidate? Mach61 23:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

   I thought part of the point of this new RFA format was to reduce excessive badgering and general nastiness in the oppose section. Ergo, people discuss for a few days, then vote based on the discussion. Reaper Eternal (talk) 23:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

   I don't believe asking the rationale for a !vote to be out of line at all, personally.   Aloha27  talk  00:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

   I also did not understand this proposal as removing customary expectations for justifying and discussing especially oppose ivotes. In fact I thought preliminary discussion followed by a straight vote was a separate proposal. Innisfree987 (talk) 05:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

   The main reason to query an unexplained oppose it to find out if there is any actual issue, as if there is, we should all be made aware of it. The usual take-away from an unexplained oppose is that there is a personal issue, which the closer should probably ignore, so the oppose is of no value, as it is useless for establishing consensus. By asking if the poster would like to expand on an unexplained oppose, the requester is assuming good faith and giving the poster a chance to show they are not just being petty. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 07:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

   I would not have commented at all if the !voter had made a "general comment" below. Regards,   Aloha27  talk  11:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

3. A history of talking behind other editors' backs in public off-wiki chat rooms (I'm not allowed to provide diffs for this, so please don't ask) makes me worry that Elli will not handle things like block appeals or contentious closes with an appropriate level of nouse and discretion. It looks like this RfA is sailing towards passing so I wish Elli well and trust that she's put that kind of thing behind her, but without direct evidence of that I can't in good conscience support it myself. – Joe (talk) 13:11, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

   We should really figure out how to handle this kind of thing better, before the next RFA. On the one hand, "what happens on Discord/WO stays on Discord/WO" would theoretically allow all kinds of shenanigans that I don't think an admin should be doing. On the other hand, how is Elli supposed to address these zero-evidence accusations? I agree that in this case, it won't tank the RFA, but it's still pretty unfair to the candidate to have this here. I'll leave it to others to fight about whether this is "allowed" by whatever 2024 RFA RFC discussion 76-B/Form 12 Para. 14 says. But on the whole, this seems marginally more unfair than useful. Floquenbeam (talk) 13:26, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

   I don't like it either, Floq, but what can I do? It's not a zero-evidence accusation, but I understand that because of the above-mentioned braindead RfC outcome, you only have my word on that. I've been oversighted before for merely mentioning what date a comment was made in a public Wikipedia-related Discord channel. I'm pretty sure that Elli will have at least a rough idea of what kind of incidents I'm talking about, and if she wants to respond that I'm misrepresenting them you can feel free to take her word on that and I promise I'm not going to argue the point. Or she can just ignore it, I doubt it'll affect the result either way. I really feel that's the best I can do and I'm fully on board with finding a better way to discuss this kind of thing in future, because I do think it often needs to be discussed. – Joe (talk) 13:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

   Actually we have more than just your word on that. I completely agree with you about that RFC being, in my words, an outrageous exercise in avoiding on-wiki accountability for posts in the "official" WP discord server (it's a long tradition: before Discord, IRC had similar "no logging" rules), and I left the Discord server after that RFC passed. But anybody can join the server at any time and search the history and read it for themselves, which I just did, and after skimming about 8 pages of Elli's posts going back to 2022, I didn't see anything that would make me change my support vote. I suppose others can do the same and make up their own minds. Levivich (talk) 16:58, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

   Indeed they can. And I'm glad to hear that Elli hasn't done anything there to raise eyebrows recently, that goes a long way to assuaging my concerns. – Joe (talk) 09:28, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

   How come people can cast around all the accusations they like about on-WPO activity (or just suspicion of)—with or without diffs—but Discord is somehow sacrosanct and inviolate? ——Serial Number 54129 13:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

   I guess that's because both didn't provide links/diffs due to the principles of the outing discussion linked by Joe and as a result WPO participation is also "sacrosanct and inviolate"? Aaron Liu (talk) 18:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

   Because the right people use Discord, of course. Lulfas (talk) 03:33, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

   WP:DISCORD has heavily censored itself in the aftermath of Vami's RfA from three years ago thanks to your (genuinely well-placed) efforts, and now has exemplary enforcement of good conduct (to the extent that I think people onwiki can learn a lot from it). No one there "talks behind other editors' backs" anymore and haven't for a long while, and you know it. As someone who routinely shit-talked other editors (including you) on that server I am genuinely thankful that that RfA was a wake up call not just in terms of increased moderation on that server but also to me, to how I thought about other editors.

   Yet it appears you are unable to drop the stick because you were insulted there three years ago. You were also unable to drop the stick about Vami's deleted userbox and persisted in publicly calling him a Nazi insinuating he was a fascist well after his RfA despite knowing how much hurt it caused him.

   In light of this, I do not think you are able to handle things like block appeals dispassionately, or indeed comment on others' conduct at all. It is clear you harbour long-running grudges against other editors and make sure that they know it in way that maximises suspicion against them and erodes community trust. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_{my edits}) 09:28, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

   I have never called another editor a Nazi and I would like you to either substantiate or remove that accusation, please. Similarly, if you have doubts about my suitability as an admin, there's a place to raise them and it isn't here.

   I'm glad to hear that the culture of the Wikipedia Discord has improved since many editors (i.e. not just me) raised concerns about it three years ago. Not regularly using it myself, I had no way of knowing that. Similarly, I don't believe I've had a single substantial interaction with Elli before or after that incident. We are right now being asked for our opinion on whether she would be a good admin and my answer, based on the admittedly limited experience I have of her character, is unfortunately no. If you consider that "harbouring grudges" then I suppose that's what I'm doing. – Joe (talk) 09:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

   Indeed... The second and third paragraphs of Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI's comment above are nothing but ridiculous off-topic personal attacks. I'm supporting this RFA myself, but that doesn't mean I feel the need to spew vitriol on the small number of people who have a different view about this candidate, and have their reasons for doing so. Please strike those paragraphs.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

   I agree this might not be the best place for this discussion, and I will strike it if Joe wishes. He did ask for the diff, so I've left it up for now. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_{my edits}) 10:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

   Struck. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_{my edits}) 10:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

   Here is the comment of yours I had in mind. I apologise for saying you called Vami a Nazi - I was mistaken and will strike that. You only insinuated he was a fascist but did not specify the flavour of fascism.

   I actually don't have a comment on your general admin skills and so don't know if you should be recalled, just that you very obviously hold grudges over past events and thus may be biased insofar as interacting with other editors is concerned. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_{my edits}) 10:10, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

   You see the word "past" there, right? – Joe (talk) 10:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

   "I have a general attitude towards fascists. You are defending your past use of fascist imagery" does not imply you're calling someone fascist? If that is genuinely the case, I will profusely apologise, strike my entire comment, and go sit in a corner. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_{my edits}) 10:28, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

   Off you go, then. – Joe (talk) 10:31, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

   Struck. Clearly this was a serious misunderstanding and I apologise for having thought that of you for so long. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_{my edits}) 10:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

   I also apologise to the wider community for disrupting the RfA. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_{my edits}) 10:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

4. Oppose. Off-wiki activity taken in relation to on-wiki activity is not prohibited and should not be. However, off-wiki activity taken in relation to on-wiki activity cannot, by rule, be presented here (see Lightburst's and Joe Roe's opposes), and thus cannot be discussed (because, without presentation for evaluation, such discussion would then be considered "zero-evidence" (bolding found used for this term above, so reproduced here). Therefore the only possible avenue for those concerned about the potential for abuse that off-wiki activity represents is to only only evaluate whether a candidate has confirmed that they have engaged in off-wiki activity taken in relation to on-wiki activity. The candidate has confirmed on-wiki their engagement of off-wiki activity in service of their on-wiki activity ("My most recent post on Wikipediocracy [...] was confirming that I am okay with being referred to by any pronouns. [...] (which in retrospect may have been better to say onwiki)." Unfortunately, because off-wiki content cannot be evaluated without evidence and because evidence cannot be presented at all, only the on-wiki confirmation of off-wiki activity can be considered. Here the candidate confirms their engagement of off-wiki activity and states plainly that it was in relation to on-wiki activity "have have been better to say onwiki" (emphasis added). With confirmation, and with my personal standard that off-wiki activity in relation to on-wiki activity carries significant potential for abuse (not that there is evidence of abuse in this specific circumstance), I regretfully oppose. --Pinchme123 (talk) 17:03, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

   If I read this comment on an off-wiki site but came in to comment on on-wiki site, would that be on-wiki or off-wiki, or a quantum superposition of on-off-wiki? — hako9 (talk) 17:37, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

   Schrödinger's RfA? RoySmith (talk) 17:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

   Wow, that's really 1984ish. Don't dare to comment on our country elsewhere, and don't dare to ever appear influenced by foreign forces, or you'll be sent to a labour camp. Lack of promotion at work is just the beginning. — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

   @Pinchme123: Let me get this straight: You oppose because the candidate talks about Wikipedia on other sites? Seriously? QuicoleJR (talk) 18:58, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

   It's pretty clearly an extreme minority opinion, I wouldn't worry about it. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 19:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

5. Per above. Therapyisgood (talk) 19:26, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

   ? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 21:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

   I would assume they mean that they agree with the concerns that anyone who posts literally anything on an off-wiki forum is manifestly unsuited to be an admin. It's a fringe position clearly not strongly supported by the community as a whole. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral until I read the RFA a third time. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

   This is the best !vote I've ever seen. Or maybe it's the worst. Or maybe it's not a !vote at all. Or maybe it's an inappropriate !vote. Or maybe I don't know what a !vote is. Or maybe you don't. DO YOU?? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:55, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

2. Neutral i did not read it ❧ LunaEatsTuna (talk), making bad edits since 2017 – posted at 23:53, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

General comments

• This is like Ghostbusters II: Elli has come to wash away the negativity of the last three RfAs. Since we're not allowed to !vote at this stage, I'll simply opine that I do not think Elli would not make an excellent admin. ——Serial Number 54129 17:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  I'm going to go make some coffee before I try again to parse out this sentence. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 17:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  It was suitable language for a !!vote. Maproom (talk) 17:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  Someone gets it  :) ——Serial Number 54129 18:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Bro made coffee 🤣 jp×g🗯️ 13:12, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

[3] Mach61 20:03, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

the explanationpilled linkmaxxer... jp×g🗯️ 09:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Throwback: It's time to stop. Please. Panini! • 🥪 01:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

this is a live equest for skibidiship adminship, not Talk:Skibidi Toilet/GA1 Queen of Hearts (🏳️‍⚧️ • 🏳️‍🌈) 02:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

• I too am excited to see this. I expect to support when the !voting opens (and not only to make amends for the fact that I missed the nominator's RfA so owe her one!). Girth Summit _(blether) 17:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• Elli has been on my list of strong candidates for a while now. I'm happy to see this. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:28, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• I have more reading to do but my first impression of this candidate is quite good. I look forward to optional questions to learn more. BusterD (talk) 17:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• I know we've been admonished for expressing quasi-pre-!votes, but all the same I'm prepared to say I'll likely support this request. < raps own knuckles > --DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• I'm willing to comply with the "concerns" requirement. I have a concern about the lack of concern shown thus far by other editors. I also have a concern about Serial Number, but I always have a concern about Serial Number, and if no one gets that, I have a concern about that, too.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  It's ok, I get it. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  In the words of Elon Musk: "Concerning." Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_{my edits}) 11:41, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

• I like seeing a prolific content creator stand at RFA. I see a long patrol log, 50k edits, 50% main space edits, and a decent AfD history. It looks like the candidate was editing much more during 2021 than any other year 29,560 edits is three times more than other years. But we can probably say that was a covid thing. I hope to offer support after doing more checks but looks promising. Lightburst (talk) 19:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with your assessment. I've asked the edit count question, since it was the only odd thing I found, and I assume others will wonder about it too. I assume the explanation is benign, but the candidate should have a chance to explain it. Toadspike [Talk] 19:40, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not the candidate but her activity levels do not concern me at all as her nominator. Even after that spike in activity, she's still spending an average of 45 minutes a day on the site for both 2022 and 2023. [4] Also, edit count isn't everything. I think it's important to consider what I wrote here: If someone in the first group took an average of 15 minutes to make an edit (e.g. reading comments on a talk page before writing a quick reply, adding a citation to a previously uncited sentence in an article, etc) and they made 100 edits a month, they would be dedicating 25 hours of their time every month to Wikipedia. If their edits took an average of 30 minutes, they would be dedicating an average of 50 hours of their time every month to Wikipedia. I believe that even this level of activity demonstrates active participation and dedication to the project. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 20:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  how does it know that... well that's a sobering look in the mirror. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  Hi Clovermoss, believe it or not I've read over your RfA criteria before and found the whole piece very well put, especially the edit count part. I didn't mean to be aggressive or accusatory towards the candidate, I just wanted to give them a chance to explain the only oddity most voters will come across (which they have now done to my satisfaction). Sadly RfA questions tend to seem pointed, accusatory, or like deliberate traps even when one doesn't mean them that way. Toadspike [Talk] 11:04, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Lightburst: To preface this, it's still a respectable patrol log, but their patrol count (9,008 based on Xtools) is misleading. There's quite a few patrols of non-mainspace pages for some reason which has seriously inflated that number, over 4,000 of which appear to have been marking templates as reviewed. Based on a quarry query, their actual review count would be 1,671 article reviews and 1,174 redirect reviews. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, at times I've tried to help patrol lesser-viewed namespaces. Lots of bad pages (tests, spam, etc) get created there and often avoid scrutiny for a while (you can see some examples at my CSD log). Elli (talk | contribs) 21:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  The last is based on quarry:query/83430? It's not accurate. It distinguishes between "article reviews" and "redirect reviews" based on whether the page is a redirect now, not what it was when it was patrolled; reliable data to distinguish redirect/non-redirect patrols doesn't exist for patrols made before November 2023. Worse is that it only counts reviews of page titles that currently exist: total patrol count including now-redlinked titles is 3093 distinct mainspace titles, 10110 in any namespace. (Even that won't see reviews of page titles so horrid that the log had to be revdelled or suppressed, but that's relatively rare.) It's only about an 8% undercount in this case, but could easily be much worse for someone who tags more pages for deletion.

  As an aside, the second part of that query is even more misleading. It's looking for deletion taggings, but has both of the same problems - so it's not "only 14 articles and 9 redirects marked for deletion", but 14 deletion markings made with the pagetriage tool on mainspace pages that are currently bluelinked non-redirects, and 9 that are now bluelinked redirects. It doesn't even tell us anything about whether those few patrols were correct: the deletion tag could have been rejected (whether as a speedy or at afd/rfd), or they could have been duly deleted and then a non-problematic version created at the same title. —Cryptic 22:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for the explanation Hey man im josh. After checking more I think it is still a great body of work. And Elli I am going to go sit in the corner now and come back when it is time to support your candidacy. I find your contributions excellent and I am sure you will be a great asset to the project in your new capacity. My questions were not born out of animus - they came from my genuine curiosity. Lightburst (talk) 23:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  Oh it's absolutely a good body of work, I don't want to disparage it in the slightest. I just felt it to be an interesting observation. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for the kind words, and no worries; I didn't think your comments were motivated by animosity. I don't particularly remember why I added that userbox, btw, other than that I was vaccinated and glad to be more protected from getting COVID. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  I like you already. I am going to leave the discussion but I am glad you were not insulted. I hope you break the 0-3 streak as SN has said above. Good luck! Lightburst (talk) 23:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  I was on the fence with Elli, but with your stamp of approval, I feel propitious. — hako9 (talk) 00:55, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for the feedback @Cryptic. I'm aware that there's an issue of "patrol" count on xtools vs actuality, for instance, reviewing redirects left behind from a page move don't add to xtools's patrol count. I also forked the query, but I didn't speak on the deletion aspect of it because I know it's incorrect and only counts deletions via the page curation tool. I personally always use Twinkle, so it counts mine incorrectly as well. I think being so heavily involved in NPP I missed out on providing some meaningful context because it's just so ingrained my mind. I'm sorry for that and I very much appreciate your comment. Hate to ask for anything but I've seen your quarry queries and I'd love and really appreciate it if you could provide a modified query that gives us more accurate information. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  I used a couple queries equivalent to what I've now put at quarry:query/83443, but this isn't really a good place to discuss it further. WP:RAQ's probably best (it might get seen there by someone who knows for sure what the distinction between those log types is; I don't). —Cryptic 23:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• From what I've seen, Elli's content work is excellent. I've given her some strawberries and she's completed some Challenges. — Bilorv (talk) 19:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• You're not an admin?? Queen of Hearts (talk) 19:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• Statistically speaking, she's a great candidate and 4 years is a long time, long enough to become an experienced Wikipedian. As a talk page "stalker",I notice she handles things pretty well. And people really seem too favour her as she's friendly. Doesn't look too bad but now I'm hearing a lot about this candidate. Gonna wait a bit.. to be sure.Soapforduck(Say what?)(Did what?) 20:11, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• I'm pleasantly surprised by this candidate's content experience and was very happy to see the anti-vandalism work they've done, including with the semi-automated account ElliAWB. I don't know how to ask about it, but I'm interested to hear more about how this candidate would handle discontent with administrative actions. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• I haven't witnessed Elli but from the little I can now, all I can say is that they are "one whom you think has the mop, but thanks it's near-near". Happy to see this, infact, lemme reserve my !vote for the time frame. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:59, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
• @Carrite: She already answered Q19 here. Why push it? — hako9 (talk) 15:39, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

  And Q18 could be answered by Q12... –FlyingAce^✈hello 15:47, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

  I think Q18 is more "what do you intend to work on next in technical areas as a admin" whereas Q12 is more "give us a salient summary of your previous technical work". Personally, I'm struggling a bit to understand why they need administrative tools in technical areas (given that they stated that they will not be working in traditional interface-admin areas for now) and Q18 would probably clear that up for me.

  That being said, I do think Ellie is more than qualified to become an administrator, they have some quirks (I've had a total of one confusing interaction with them outside the RFA), but most of their edits have no obvious red flags and that's all I personally care about when looking at an administrative candidate. I intend to support unless major red flags are brought up. Sohom (talk) 18:05, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

• Is the idea that we are supposed to be helping look for skellies prior to the public opening of the closet? Well, I don't know about any skellies. I suppose the requisite links are -- discussions opened, edit count, afds commented at... what else did i miss... I would give a link to the admin score thing, but I thjink that tool is offline now....... because the guy who wrote it got desysopped and indef-blocked himself and left forever 🤔... jp×g🗯️ 20:22, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

  I suppose the canonical one -- wow, there's 23 separate user templates?? -- uh -- Elli (global contributions, logs, moves, uploads, pages patrolled, accounts created, review log, pending changes log, registration time, userpage log, block log, rights log, meta). jp×g🗯️ 20:25, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

  Is this what you're looking for? The score definitely indicates that she's well qualified for adminship. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 20:55, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

  Well, lots of things indicate that, but the impression I get is that we are not supposed to just spend the discussion period talking about how the candidate kicks ass etc. jp×g🗯️ 05:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think there was anything in the wording of the new rule the prohibited positive comments in the discussion-only phase. Indeed if only negative things were allowed, even if only minor, that would risk making the candidate look like a net negative, before the voting has even started. I don't really know what the thinking was behind this two-day discussion window, but I doubt its intention was to unofficially open the Oppose section two days before the Support section!  — Amakuru (talk) 06:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

  I think you missed the word "just". JPxG is clearly not saying that. Nardog (talk) 06:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

• I have unfortunately not crossed paths with Elli before now but from their responses to the questions posed, a cursory inspection of their edit history, and their general demeanour in discussions with other editors they seem like a very strong candidate for adminship. I'm particularly pleased with the responses to my questions (Q14 & Q15) - I think cross-project participation where you're able to is always a good thing, it helps to broaden your skills and improve Wikimedia's overall coverage. Plus it's always good to see admins continuing to work on articles (and the more qualified candidates stepping up, the less admin time needs to be monopolised with administration). I'd also like to add it's a welcome change to see an expletive being used in relation to administering Wikipedia that's entirely appropriate. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 22:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
• The above is a good example of why a pre-vote discussion at RFA is helpful in getting a more accurate result. Yes, from the two earlier RFAs, it does not lessen the pain of rejection (and probably amplifies it), however, my understanding is that we have other fora where an RFA candidate can get an opinion on their suitability. Having the above pre-vote discussion also helps less experienced contributors like myself get an understanding of what is needed at RFA (i.e. from reading the above, this RFA has a very positive chance). Aszx5000 (talk) 11:06, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

  Except that 2 days of voting usually makes it much more clear if the candidate is going to pass or not (bar significant negatives coming to light later in the rfa) (t · c) buidhe 12:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• I will say that something this trial period does seem to encourage is more questions than the standard format. I only have 15 total in mine, this RfA is already up to 21 and we're not even 2 days in. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:05, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

  And mine had 9 questions. But it is hard to say how many questions one would get. Spicy's had 25 questions, Sdkb's had 24. If anything that we had from DR's RfA, the third day's questioning slowed down significantly. Hopefully it is the same here. – robertsky (talk) 13:59, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

  And if this holds true, i.e. 2 days of questioning (intense or otherwise), then 5 days of voting with minimal questioning, this works in favour of the candidates as they can take the time out on the weekend to answer questions, and relax a bit more over the week while the votes come in. We may get to see our weekends occupied with RfAs being launched under this format. – robertsky (talk) 14:07, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

• A note on the Graph extension: there is an April update, which the Foundation is planning to rework the extension as a service from scratch. – robertsky (talk) 14:32, 2 June 2024 (UTC)