Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Valereee

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

Valereee

Final (231/8/12); Closed as successful by Primefac (talk) at 16:59, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Nomination

Valereee (talk · contribs) – Valereee is a stalwart of the encyclopedia. She's a no-nonsense, get on with the job type of editor and it shows in her work. She's interested in food and drink and has written several articles on the topic including the good article Cincinnati chili, and is a regular at Women in Red. Looking through her talkpage, I can see plenty of examples of her being polite and welcome to anyone wanting to ask questions, and her general standard of conduct is excellent. More recently, I've seen her taking an active interest in the Did you know area of the main page, which is an area of the project where we're frequently starved for admins.

Having had more spare time recently to commit to the project, Valereee feels she's now in a position to be able to make use of the tools. We need some more sensible and compassionate admins who are good communicators, and hopefully this is a good example of one. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:29, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Co-nomination

I can't recommend Valereee highly enough. She has excellent skills writing and researching articles. She stays calm and cool when making her arguments on Wikipedia and she communicates well with other editors. I've been so impressed with her research! There are times that I'm going to look for a reference for an article and Valereee has already found and added the reference herself! I'm really glad that Valereee will have more time to devote to Wikipedia and is ready to step up. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:41, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you, Ritchie333 and Megalibrarygirl, I accept the nomination. I have never edited for pay, and this is my only account.

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: One of the areas that often makes me think "wish I could help" is DYK. I’ve often watched the hours tick by with five or six full preps and zero full queues and wished I could help; simple nagging doesn’t feel at all helpful. There are likely other tasks at Admin backlogs that fall into the same category: things I’d be happy to do as long as figuring out how to do it without breaking anything seems likely. In general one of the things I love most about WP is its collaborative & generally collegial nature. I’d like to be able to help content contributors just trying to keep their heads down and get on with their work deal with disruption, or respond to other requests for assistance. I would genuinely enjoy being someone people could ask for help. To me this feels like collaboration. My primary goal is to contribute in ways that don’t cause more work for others but instead make others’ volunteer hours more effective.

I’d like to be able to help more at AfD, which actually feels very collaborative to me. Sometimes I think for a poorly-sourced article with promise, an AfD nomination can be very productive for that article, and if handled well can also be really helpful for newer editors who have an article nominated. I actually get a nerdy thrill when an article like Yongfeng chili sauce gets nominated and I think it has more promise than the nominator thought it did (no disrespect meant to good-faith nominators; I’ve researched multiple AfD’d articles and ended up ultimately in agreement with the nom, but it’s fun to see if I can find sources that will go to proving notability for a subject.) In general assessing arguments to determine consensus/no consensus feels like collaboration to me, whether at AfD or other collaborative debate areas. I’d also like to help with refund to userspace for those who think they’d like to try to keep working on a deleted article without pressure.

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

A: I’m quite proud of Marjorie Paxson (awaiting GA review), Dorothy Misener Jurney, and Marie Anderson, three not-even-redlinked women who were quite notable and influential in their field, women’s page journalism, which has really only been recognized as important by academics in the past eight or ten years. I’m thrilled with Zhang Dongju, but not because I created it. I heard a story on NPR about a new archeological discovery, and I just jumped off a cliff writing it, and it immediately got tagged for notability, and another editor who’d come in to add the subject’s name in Chinese started pulling up Chinese sources. To me, this is the part of Wikipedia I love the most: I took a chance and moved to article space before I was 100% sure, and another editor followed the thread, and we ended up with an article. I love that. I took Cincinnati chili from a pretty rough article to GA, and I’m working on taking it to FA; it’s at peer review now. I created The Tempestry Project and took it to GA, and I’ve created quite a few articles that I’ve taken to DYK. I’m also quite proud of all the gnomish work I’ve done over many years now. I’ve fixed a lot of typos and grammatical errors and made a lot of small rewordings to improve clarity or reduce awkwardness, and I feel this kind of work is extremely valuable, and I’m proud of doing it. I’ve worked with a lot of COI editors, including hostile ones like at Talk:Lee Siegel (cultural critic) and very well-intentioned ones like at Talk:Vegan studies, and I try to treat them with kindness and patience while still making sure their COI doesn’t affect the article, and I’m proud of that.

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

A: I actually think possibly my strongest qualification is temperament. I’m hard to offend (you have to be actively trying to offend me, and even then I’m more likely to find it funny than to become upset). I assume good faith probably to a fault, my patience might actually be 98th %ile, I’ll apologize if there’s any chance I was even slightly in the wrong, and if I lose a debate or a third opinion goes against me I can move on, though I might take the article off my watch list if it’s something that’s going to continue to bother me. I try really hard to understand others’ points of view, even when they’re behaving badly, and I’ve found that when I respond to someone who is behaving badly by not escalating, often they’ll rise to expectations. This isn’t to say I don’t engage often in vigorous debate on talk pages or make the occasional salty remark, or that I’ve never made a bad decision when dealing with conflict. But most often the conflict I’ve had with other editors tends to take the form of long discussions on talk pages. I’m aware that these tools would increase the likelihood of conflicts not easily resolved by simple discussion.

---

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.

Additional question from Ritchie333 (via email)

4. Can you explain why you were inactive in 2016-2017?

A: Between 2016 and 2018, we sold a house we’d been in for 17 years, moved to a rental, bought a small elderly house, put on an addition that doubled its size, moved from the rental into the new place, and renovated the rest of it while living there. I didn’t edit much; if I did see a gnomish edit that needed to be made, I didn’t log in.

Additional question from StudiesWorld

5. I have seen you around, primarily at DYK, and will probably support regardless of the answer to this question and I hope that you don't take offense by it. One thing that gave me pause was when you said, I’m hard to offend (you have to be actively trying to offend me, and even then I’m more likely to find it funny than to become upset). I assume good faith probably to a fault. Do you think that you will be able to effectively enforce our policies against bullying and harassment, if you are prone to finding things that attempt to offend funny?

A: Thanks, StudiesWorld, sorry, I meant an attempt to offend me, I'm more likely to find funny than to be personally offended by. I’ve occasionally run across someone who, it seemed, was just itching for a fight, saying things that clearly seemed intended to upset me or rattle me. I feel a lot more protective of other people. I don’t expect anyone to put up with harassment or bullying; it should just plain not happen.

Additional question from John M Wolfson

6. If you were placed in an unfamiliar situation that entailed the use of your admin tools, how would you deal with it?

A: Thanks, JMW! I’d deal with an unfamiliar situation entailing admin tools the same way I deal with an unfamiliar situation that doesn’t involve them now: Do the reading, if necessary ask for guidance from someone I know to be well-intentioned and experienced, assess whether after the reading and the guidance I’m confident I can deal with it competently, and if I think I can do it without breaking anything, deal with the situation. If I feel it’s unlikely I can manage it well, ask someone else to manage it. If I make a mistake that I can’t fix or that I suspect I’ll simply make worse by trying to fix, ask for help.

Additional question from John M Wolfson

7. What is your biggest regret from your time on Wikipedia, and how have you learned from it?

A: Actually it’s related to the above: I hate it when other editors have to fix my mistakes. It’s made me cautious with learning curves and very appreciative of the kind patience of other editors when it does happen.

Additional question from Leaky

8. What guidance is available to you as an Admin. in closing issues raised at ANI?

A. Thanks, Leaky. ANI’s an area in which I have almost no experience, so I’d be starting from scratch. If for some reason I was needed for a closing at ANI I’d start by reading whatever I could find. I’d be reading through recent ANI archives and looking at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard and its archives, Wikipedia:Closing discussions and essays like Wikipedia:Advice on closing discussions ditto, and anywhere any of those pointed at, looking for advice specific to or generalizable to ANI. There are likely others I’d find with more time and research. Once I’d exhausted all of that, I’d likely be asking one the regular closers there to point me at other reading, and once I’d exhausted that, I’d likely still be wondering if I really understood ANI closings well enough to meddle there and thinking there had to be someone more qualified. I’m sorry, does that even get at the gist of your question?

Perfectly satisfactory thanks. I would just urge caution on which of the regular closers you take advice from. There is a tendency to shutdown valid discussion prematurely, in particular those related to Admin. actions or those of long-established editors. In the Giant Snowman Arbcom case, AC attempted to make a point, rather poorly, of cautioning against early close of ANI discussions where Admin. actions are concerned. As with many AC edicts, this has been largely ignored.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Leaky caldron (talk • contribs) 20:00, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from Dolotta

9. What area or areas of the English Wikipedia do you find yourself to be the weakest?

A: Thanks, Dolotta! My biggest weakness is anything technical. I’m thrilled with some of the bots and scripts and gadgets and forms available and can just about follow the instructions to install/use them and report glitches, but anything beyond that is the point at which I become incompetent. I have no aspirations to move into those areas.

Additional question from PBS

10. I came across this nomination via WP:AE and then looked up our interaction, of which there is only one (June 2015). Do you still hold the opinion: "My understanding of pendings is that I'm not responsible for making sure good faith information is correct as to content or style"?

A: Thanks, PBS. It's an accept I wouldn't make now, as I'm more familiar with that particular MOS issue and would have recognized it as an incorrect edit. The policy is that pending changes is to prevent vandalism, BLP vios, and copyright vios, not to prevent good-faith but incorrect edits, but I don't think I worded my response to you particularly well, and I'm cringing a little. --valereee (talk) 11:46, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from Nosebagbear

11. Within DYK there seem some perennial/ongoing discussions about should there be more/fewer biographical DYKs, a better geographical split etc etc. How would you like to see the "mix" change (if at all)?

A: Thanks, Nosebagbear. I’d love to see the mix continue to expand, basically in any way you can think of. It’s not that I have any complaint with the mix we’re dishing up right now; it’s what other editors are nominating. I’m not averse to bios; half does seem like a lot when you consider we're writing a summary of all human knowledge, but I guess bios are what other editors are writing. Or at least that's what they're submitting to us. That doesn't seem to have changed much in the ten years since that guideline was written. And I’m fine with US-oriented articles, but again up to half seems very high; it looks like in 2015 we changed our guidelines from ‘roughly half’ to ‘up to half’ of hooks in a set could be US-related because US hooks had become less prevalent. I’d say that trend is continuing; I think we’re probably at two or three US-related hooks in most sets, depending on how you assess them. (For instance, a hook about three women, one of them American, being inducted into a Canadian hockey hall of fame, with the hall of fame being the target article...does that count as a US-related hook for purposes of setting a prep? Such are the things promoters at DYK think about.) But I love it when I see something really different come over the transom.

Additional question from œ^™

12. You've mentioned you'd like to help out at various collaborative areas of admin work, which is commendable. I'm curious which, if any, other areas of the admin backlog you'd try to tackle that involve more technical 'grunt' type work?

A: Thanks, OlEnglish. Grunt work doesn’t scare me. Technical might, depending on exactly what it means/involves. I no longer consider myself a fast study. I can follow instructions, but I no longer am able to commit those instructions to memory in one go the way I could when I was 28. I’m not trying to evade the question; it’s just that without having investigated how something is accomplished, I’m not sure whether a look at the instructions would make me think, “Oh, sure! I can do that!” or “Back out slowly, don’t look it in the eye, and don’t make any sudden moves.” I literally had the DYK noms > preps instructions hanging on the wall above my screen the first few times I did it because they wanted me to be working in two windows at the same time. If you’ve got a particular backlog in mind, or just want to suggest one, I’d be happy to take a look at those instructions.

Additional question from RoySmith

13. How would you approach WP:CIVIL problems? How would you determine if something is a violation of WP:CIVIL or not, and if you decided it was, how would you deal with it?

A: Hey, RoySmith! I think civility and what violates the civility policy might be the hardest of our policies to really define and to deal with. It varies by culture, it’s often contextual, and it’s complicated by the fact that when we’re interacting online we can’t use vocal tone, facial expression, body language to help us interpret one another’s intent. And our rules are confusing; we include ‘rudeness’ in our list of incivilities, but we’ve separately decided “Fuck off” is not necessarily uncivil. Unfortunately I think the answer to ‘how would you determine if something is a violation or not?” for most of us is “I know it when I see it,” and while that’s never going to be really satisfactory, I don’t know how we fix it.

If I saw something that looked to me like incivility, my first step would be to post to user talk with a diff and an opening bid. Depending on the level of incivility and whether it’s a habit with that editor, that might be anything from, “Hey, EditorX, I'm wondering if maybe you might not have realized this was a very new editor you were talking to here, can you tell me what’s going on?” to “You’re calling names in this edit summary again. You’ve been asked to stop doing this on five separate occasions. Each time, you’ve agreed you would stop. What’s going on?”

Discussion

• Links for Valereee: Valereee (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Valereee 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. Yes to this excellent candidate. El_C 17:02, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
2. Support as nominator Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:03, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
3. Not a jerk, has a clue. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:06, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
4. Support. Has pretty great AfD stats, and I don't see any immediate problems. (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
5. Support. They have thousands of edits and have never been blocked, so they seem good to me. Bill Williams (talk) 17:09, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
6. Support. Is competent, has a clue and can be trusted. Have seen some of her DYK contributions and it's quite unlike the regular offenders. ∯WBG^converse 17:15, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
7. Support Based on nominators' support. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:17, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
8. Support, do not see any red flags--Ymblanter (talk) 17:18, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
9. Support I find that whenever I see this candidate's edits on my watch pages ~ they have been edited properly ~mitch~ (talk) 17:20, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
10. Support - Experienced in a needed area (DYK), content contributor, always courteous, and has gained the respect of fellow Wikipedians. This will be great. MarginalCost (talk) 17:22, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
11. Support While I don't know Valereee, they seem like a fine editor and make a compelling case for needing to be an Admin. Chetsford (talk) 17:24, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
12. For the same reasons that led to Serial Number 54129's oppose, in my opinion, the English Wikipedia currently has an increased need for new administrators, and the candidate seems to be trustworthy and competent. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:28, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
13. Support Experienced and competent, is helpful and civil. Schazjmd (talk) 17:33, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
14. Support. Level-headed, polite, and reasonable. Definite admin material. —Aranya (talk | contribs) 17:34, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
15. Support. A competent, even-tempered editor with a clear need for the tools and strong content experience. Exactly what we need. – Joe (talk) 17:41, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
16. Support - per Ritchie333's nomination. --MrClog (talk) 17:45, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
17. Support per my new criteria for adminship: Until SanFranJanBansFram is satisfactorily resolved, I will support adminship for any editor in good standing who is nominated by an experienced editor in good standing. - MrX 🖋 17:57, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
18. Support, I trust Valereee and agree with a lot of the reasons mentioned in other support votes. In addition, I've noticed that DYK is often part of the admin backlog, so I see no reason to keep someone who clearly wants to help from doing so. Clovermoss (talk) 18:13, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
19. Support. We need more (qualified) admins —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 18:17, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
20. Support Glad someone qualified has put their hand up. No qualms whatsoever. SportingFlyer T·C 18:20, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
21. Support per TonyBallioni. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:32, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
22. Support. Know well from AfD. Has the technical competency and the even-temperment to be a good admin; and is also good fun to interact with. Britishfinance (talk) 18:34, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
23. Support Per User:Megalibrarygirl and has been in project since 2006 and a clear Net Postive.See no concerns.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
24. Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 18:47, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
25. Support: Clearly focused on content and with a great temperament. We must take every opportunity to recruit editors like Valereee as admins. More, please, Ritchie. --RexxS (talk) 18:58, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
26. Support Excellent candidate. scope_creep^Talk 19:03, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
27. Strong support per Serial Number 54129. Much respect for Valereee for throwing her hat in the ring, especially now. GAB^gab 19:09, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
28. Support precious --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:21, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
29. Support - comes to the table with excellent references, and we certainly need good, level-headed administrators. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 19:34, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
30. Support Excellent long-time contributor, plus she's a knitter. Knitters are stable, sensible, creative, lovely people. MOAR KNITTERS FOUR ADMINZ Katie^talk 19:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
31. Support Why not? --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 19:39, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
32. Support an excellent contributor with an admirable approach to working with inexperienced editors. gnu57 19:39, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
33. Support - From my personal experience: Great with newbies, I mean really great; Goes above and beyond to assist; Pleasant to interact with. Therefore, have no reason to doubt when others attribute other correlative characteristics that I would want in all admins- good temperament, politeness, carefulness, kindness, (most of all) AGF. Nominated/supported by people I've come to know to have good judgement. More focused on making useful contributions than racking up edit counts, as far as I can tell. Commendable edit summary stats. Finally, I have come to appreciate TonyBallioni's viewpoint a bit more, since the last RfA. Am 100% certain that candidate is not a jerk/dick, has a clue and would not abuse their tools (to the point of over-caution). Total, unreserved, emphatic support. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 19:46, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
34. Support - I thought you already were an admin!! Your efforts at DYK have been a bonus to the project. Thank you for your service there. — Maile (talk) 19:55, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
35. Support No reason to think this user would abuse the tools. --rogerd (talk) 20:09, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
36. Support. A fine, mop-deserving editor. And as far as the WP:FRAM related oppose is concerned; something about babies and bathwater. Yintan  20:19, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
37. Support Competent with good temperament. JohnThorne (talk) 20:22, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
38. Support based on endorsements by several users who I think trustworthy cygnis insignis 20:30, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
39. Support well-qualified candidate. I have some burnout concerns due to the candidate's activity on-wiki being confined to two relatively short spurts of activity, however, the break in the middle is well explained, adminship is not a big deal, and I'd rather have this candidate available to help out with our backlogs. Frankly baffling oppose from Serial Number. ST47 (talk) 20:40, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
40. Support very glad to see new volunteers coming forward at this time.Mccapra (talk) 20:43, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
41. Support I've encountered this editor before and came away thinking she might already be an admin. No concerns about giving her the mop. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:45, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
42. Support – This is clearly a qualified candidate, and a review of her user talk page makes it eminent that she is a pleasure to work with and will be a pleasure to work with as an administrator. Mz7 (talk) 21:01, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
43. Support A highly qualified candidate. I have no problem with the timing. Thank you for stepping forward, Valereee. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:15, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
44. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:31, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
45. Support. Looks good, and I don't think a controversy elsewhere on-wiki, unrelated to this candidate, is a reason to oppose. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:45, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
46. Support. good chance of being net positive Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:56, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
47. Support: a quality contributor who will make a quality admin.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:04, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
48. Support. Sure. Mackensen (talk) 22:18, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
49. Support Highly qualified candidate. I am One of Many (talk) 22:20, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
50. Strong support: the candidate says I actually think possibly my strongest qualification is temperament and this really did strike me when looking through some of their contributions. An excellent temperament is, in my opinion, far and away the most important quality an admin can have. Looking at their discussions with editors—some hostile, some impolite and some co-operative—it seems valereee is unfailingly calm and helpful. Their content creation relating to women's biographies and food is of an excellent calibre. They have a very positive attitude towards working with other editors, and it's lovely to see someone who approaches DYK and AFD with collaboration in mind; I have no doubt that valereee will put the tools to good use and treat adminship responsibly. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 22:35, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
51. Support Well qualified, always nice to work with. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:41, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
52. Support. Solid long-term content contributor, calm temperament and good communication with new editors. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:05, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
53. Stephen 23:10, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
54. Support ~SS49~ {talk} 23:22, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
55. Support - Very good contributor, particularly at DYK. I am satisfied by the answer to my question and fully support the candidate. StudiesWorld (talk) 23:28, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
56. Support no reason to oppose. Banedon (talk) 23:41, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
57. Support From what I have seen (admittedly no that much - not my neighbourhood), candidate is knowledgeable, level-minded, and committed. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:46, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
58. Support. Excellent article contributions, and strong communication skills. — Newslinger talk 23:49, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
59. Support - solid, tenured candidate; even-tempered and competent. Kuru (talk) 00:10, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
60. Support - citing Usedtobecool and Bilorv. starship.paint (talk) 00:33, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
61. Support and look forward to her joining the admin corps.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
62. Support Not a jerk, has clue, sounds good enough. SemiHypercube 00:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
63. Support Per Ritchie. Lourdes 00:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
64. Support - good candidate, competent and civil. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 01:04, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
65. Support I'm a newbie and not sure my support counts for much, but I'm bookmarking @valeree's interactions with Lee Siegel as a shining example of how to deal with an angry interaction on WP. Logophile59 (talk) 01:08, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
66. Support I spend too much time at the WP:Helpdesk and WP:Teahouse and have been impressed with Valereee's patience and good temperament with fellow editors there, regardless of their experience. Orville^talk 01:15, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
67. Support demonstrates a calm, mature and levelheaded approach, and will use the tools. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:31, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
68. Support Why not? -FASTILY 01:36, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
69. Support Thorough + thoughtful ~ – SJ + 02:03, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
70. Support, I don't see any reason why not. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:13, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
71. Support - writes good articles, and I love the attitude that she doesn't take offense easily. And I really don't like the timing oppose. --GRuban (talk) 02:28, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
72. Support - Writes tasty articles. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:17, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
73. Support, a clear yes. Good temperament, as others have stated, a look at her talk page shows clear and concise communication with other editors, and a levelheaded approach even if she doesn't agree with someone else. QueerFilmNerd^talk 03:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
74. Support – Excellent candidate, and well-liked + recommended by other experienced users above. Seems to be reasonably active recently, and Valereee is clearly familiar enough with Wikipedia policies to take the next step to adminship. I also like quality of work that Valereee has contributed to this site thus far, and this user seems to be experienced enough. I understand the periods of inactivity in the past - family and work can definitely take a toll on other activities. Concerning any "Oppose" votes because of WP:FRAMGATE, I absolutely understand that this crisis is likely to affect RfAs at this time more negatively, but I think that any reason for opposing on those grounds specifically are just ridiculous. Anyone qualified for this position deserves our support. If anything, we need more qualified admins. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 03:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
75. Support per WP:NOBIGDEAL. Guettarda (talk) 03:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
76. Support Very level headed, good editing history. Basic qualification for any admin is would you trust them with the tools. I do. SusunW (talk) 03:43, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
77. Support. Might have not been the best time to run, but you'll do fine nonetheless. Anarchyte (talk | work) 04:25, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
78. Support. Valereee is a good writer and has contributed some good articles. I like her calm temperament which I think is an important quality for an administrator. I also see good communications and a willingness to help others on her talk pages. I am impressed by her recent work at DYK and willingness to help in new areas. I have not had a DYK for more than a year but the last time I did I saw that there were backlogs and delays. More administrators (and others) helping out there always seem to be needed. I think she has done enough to show familiarity with policies. She has established trustworthiness and I support her candidacy. Donner60 (talk) 04:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
79. Support, a check of edits looks good and nothing stands out as a problem. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
80. Support - seems like a good candidate — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 06:07, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
81. Support - Haven't come across her but she looks fine to me. Deb (talk) 07:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
82. Support per me learned colleagues above - I see no reason to oppose. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:03, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
83. Support – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:05, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
84. Support Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
85. Support - Fine writer. Collaborative and level-headed over a long period of time. Ready for the mop. --Rosiestep (talk) 08:29, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
86. Support Seems to be a net positive to the project as an editor, will likely be a net positive as an admin. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 08:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
87. Support, no issues, the more moppers the better. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:58, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
88. Support - I can't see any reason not to trust them with admin tools.Hugsyrup (talk) 09:08, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
89. Support looks like a net positive to me, nothing sticks out that would cause me to think otherwise. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:49, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
90. Support per TonyBallioni. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:50, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
91. Support Tolly4bolly 09:55, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
92. I have conducted a thorough review of the candidate's recent-ish DYK work. I have misgivings about the DYK process. But if we are to retain the process we need a strong coterie of capable main-page editors, read administrators, to deal with it. On my review of contributions I saw the occasional case of a DYK article that I don't think should have been promoted (eg Template:Did you know nominations/Hu Peizhao). But the overall evidence leads me to believe that the candidate will be a net-positive in that area of wikipedia. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
93. Support I'm liking her good-natured take on whimsical food topics like the haggis pakora. Andrew D. (talk) 10:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
94. Support Lectonar (talk) 10:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
95. Support. Have seen her work, have consistently appreciated it. — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:08, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
96. Support. Trusted nominators, clueful contributions, civil demeanor. On a side note: Despite the current unpleasantness, I don't think one should be withholding support for reasons that have nothing to do with the candidate herself. Valereee is not to blame for the Foundation's current rampage wrt community self-determination and should not be penalized for it. Regards SoWhy 12:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
97. Support. I've reviewed her record and I believe she is more than fit for the job. agucova (talk) 13:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
98. Support Trustworthy, well-rounded candidate who will be useful in needed areas. Spencer^T•C 13:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
99. Support Some metrics I'd like to see are low but no red flags, NETPOS. -- ferret (talk) 13:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
100. Support Great candidate, trustworthy, no reason to oppose. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 13:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
101. Support I understand the concern of the opposes and the neutrals, and to some degree share them. Is this really a good time to run for adminship? But on the other hand this is a good candidate, and, this being a large volunteer community, not everyone can be expected to be aware of everything that goes on. If the WP:FRAMBAN issues will not be sorted out, I'll retire to make it even... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:49, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
102. Support - delighted to. I've had the privilege of working with the candidate a some, would gladly do lots more. Lots of CLUE, and from the get-go has shown exemplary dedication towards making this a better encyclopedia. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
103. Support After reviewing some recent discussions I can confirm that she is one of the nicest editors I’ve seen here. This is exactly the kind of person we want to represent the community. Trialpears (talk) 13:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
104. Support. I've seen Valereee around at the main-page and errors boards, and in various other places, and find them a very competent editor, who will make a great admin. I will also go on record that I find the comments below, from editors I like and trust, quite unfortunate. Everyone's entitled to their view. But to criticise Valereee, even in neutral terms, for stepping forward and offering to take on the mop, just because of a political situation entirely unrelated to them, is not a good thing in my view. Whatever the rights and wrongs of WP:FRAM, we're primarily here to build an encyclopedia, and chasing Valereee away is not the best way to achieve that. It doesn't look like it will make any numerical difference, but I nonetheless urge those in the sections below to reconsider, and support the candidacy, unless there's something about the candidate themselves that needs review. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 14:04, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
105. Support net positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:44, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
106. Support it is always a pleasure to support a thoughtful editor who will can be trusted to use the extra buttons of the sysop toolset with wisdom and grace. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:07, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
107. Support as co-nom. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:38, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
108. Support In tumultuous times, leaders emerge through adversity. I have the utmost respect for those that have chosen to give up their added duties recently. But, I believe that the saying "Next one up!" rings true here. This candidate checks all of the boxes as a net+ for the project. Strikerforce^Talk 15:42, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
109. Support Went through her contributions and it did not take long for me to get convinced.--Snaevar (talk) 16:03, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
110. Support, a very good editor and candidate.14GTR (talk) 16:07, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
111. Support very longterm experienced and uncontentious member of the community. Among other things i have checked her deleted contributions and am not concerned by them. I had advised people not to run during the current crisis, but am reassured that at least in this case the crisis is leading some to abstain rather than to oppose. So I'm with the candidate re the RFA, but emotionally and with respect to the WMF, I'm in the neutral section. I was tempted to describe this support as "moral neutral" but thought that might be confusing. ϢereSpielChequers 16:22, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
112. Sandstein 16:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
113. Support. Experienced and trusted candidate and hoping that she will support our bid to improve relations with the WMF. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:33, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
114. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 17:48, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
115. Very pleased to support. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
116. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
117. Support: Solid, long-term contributor. A net positive to the project and we need more admins with common sense and thoughtfulness. Montanabw^(talk) 18:22, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
118. Big yes from me. I've seen this candidate's collaboration with other users and I have no hesitations. Judging by the votes above, I have no reason to believe this candidate will abuse the tools. MX (✉ • ✎) 18:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
119. Support -- I feel comfortable throwing my support her way. -- Dolotta (talk) 18:43, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
120. Support per Eric Corbett. Gamaliel (talk) 19:06, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

     User:Gamaliel, come on now. There is no need for this pettiness. Drmies (talk) 18:21, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

     User:Drmies, au contraire, if the community is forced to endure this kind of misogynistic trolling, then a little pettiness is entirely called for. Gamaliel (talk) 20:41, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

     User:Gamaliel, I am happy to support Valereee for proper reasons. Trolling in response to trolling--sheesh. Drmies (talk) 00:44, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

     I'm surprised my mild comment has prompted such an aggrieved response, and yet I fail to see you engage in any tut-tutting about the misogynistic comments. Funny that. Gamaliel (talk) 01:02, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

121. Support per her satisfactory answer to my questions. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:13, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
122. Support -- After reading the discussion, answers to questions, and supports from the above, I am comfortable putting my support behind this candidate. The opposes (as of yet) have not convinced me otherwise and I disagree (with the utmost respect) that timing should be reason enough for oppose under any circumstances. Yes, WP:FRAM is big and unprecedented, but I would hope that the community would not let it impact any RfX nominations made in good faith and totally unrelated the events at hand. As has been said at WP:FRAM, the majority of the community is probably entirely unawares and I imagine that not all admins know either (nor may ever). Questions related to the Fram controversy/incident would be loaded (as an understatement) and quite possibly in poor taste. I would frankly advise/urge avoidance on those grounds as they are not productive in determining whether a candidate would make a good administrator. I recognize the view that a successful RfA now would diminish the impact/message that all the resignations have on the project, but adminship is - by definition - supposed to be no big deal and to think that an RfX passing now would diminish the impact/message that all resignations have into perpetuity blows things way out of proportion. I also recognize that this comment will probably receive objections, but it has to be said somewhere. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 19:17, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
123. Support No evidence they will misuse the tools or abuse the position.--MONGO (talk) 20:32, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
124. Support Not a perfect candidate, but looks completely worthy of some community investment. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:50, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
125. Support Opposition is wholly unconvincing, and my review found nothing serious. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:05, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
126. Support Can't really find a reason to oppose. Seems worthy enough to have the admin tools. VibeScepter (talk) (contributions) 21:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
127. Support great contributor, no issues at all as far as I can see, net benefit checkbox is ticked. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:25, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
128. Support – I have to disagree with the opposing points. The Fram kerfuffle is one thing; this RfA is another. Regardless of who runs Wikipedia, we need administrators, and I can't see anything wrong with Valereee becoming one. Kurtis ^(talk) 22:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
129. Support This should be judged on its own merits, not by other matters which have no relationship to the candidate. There's no evidence ofany problems with thecandidate, and much evidence of good work. DGG ( talk ) 22:44, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
130. Support' Solid candidate. Regarding the opposes (and even some of the neutrals), not everything has to revolve around Framgate. Pichpich (talk) 23:04, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
131. Support -- solid candidate, with good contribution history and committment to the community, Sadads (talk) 23:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
132. Support Excellent candidate for the position... I fundamentally disagree with the opposes related to the Fram issue. This is about the CANDIDATE, not Fram and not the WMF. Noah^Talk 00:15, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
133. Support: a trusted contributor; thank you for volunteering. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:18, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
134. Support Net positive. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 01:52, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
135. Support. Very good temperament and attitude. Should be a great admin. WOPR (talk) 01:58, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
136. Support. No qualms or concerns. bd2412 T 02:33, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
137. Support Hey why not... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:33, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
138. Support would have liked to see more edits from the user. She is not an all rounder since only 4 WP:AIV edits and a few more to WP:RFPP. But this is not a deal breaker since the candidate has indicated that these are not the areas she is interested in. overall, seems like a good candidate for the mop.--DBigXrayᗙ 05:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
139. Support Seren_Dept 05:27, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
140. Pile-on support Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:45, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
141. Support per above, and the opposition appears to be entirely for querulous reasons - David Gerard (talk) 07:24, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
142. Support. I see no reason not to. Sasquatch t|c 07:56, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
143. Support. I see no reason to oppose, certainly not the Fram thing. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:14, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

     And this is one more reason to support. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:00, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

144. Support based on candidate's excellent editing and communication history. Thanks for volunteering. Bakazaka (talk) 08:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
145. Support per DGG. – Ammarpad (talk) 08:44, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
146. Support experienced, qualified editor. GermanJoe (talk) 08:56, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
147. Support why not? – Teratix ₵ 09:09, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
148. Support I don't usually pile on supports when the outcome looks almost certian, but at present I'd like to see as many new admins as possible, and I see no reason not to support here. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 10:42, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
149. Support Another candidate who seems refreshingly free of drama, and with a solid record of contributions. The oppose comment about "anyone associated with WiR is equally culpable for any of their comments" is irrelevant and deeply unwelcome. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
150. Support no reason not to. Danski454 (talk) 12:00, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
151. Support after review. The candidate should be judged on her individual merits, for which she excels, and should not have to deal with oppose or neutral votes just because of an unrelated controversy elsewhere on Wikipedia. ZettaComposer (talk) 12:50, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
152. Support - displays competence and a suitable temperament for being an administrator. No concerns. --Laser brain (talk) 13:08, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
153. Support. Why not? Double sharp (talk) 13:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
154. Support. based on review. Kierzek (talk) 13:31, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
155. I endorse the nomination statement. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
156. Support Good candidate. Jianhui67 ^T★C 15:23, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
157. Support no concerns. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 15:34, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
158. Support WP:NOBIGDEAL. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:03, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
159. Support - great candidate who would be an absolute net positive with a mop in hand, - adept enough so to just about overcome my hesitation to promote admins amidst present turmoil. Stormy clouds (talk) 16:04, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
160. Support I'm left with little choice but to do as vetting checks out and the opposes are best left untouched.^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:17, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
161. No concerns. Mélencron (talk) 17:21, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
162. Support - Changing my mind, struck out my neutral vote. Upon self-introspection, everyone else is right; there is nothing wrong with this candidate, and we need more good admins, not fewer.--WaltCip (talk) 17:30, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
163. Support We need the dues! (But seriously, good responses to the questions. Seems level-headed and dedicated to promoting inclusivity.) caknuck _° needs to be running more often 17:39, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
164. Support - Make a friend when you don't need one.___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 18:19, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
165. Support. Valereee is a good and helpful editor in whose judgment I trust. Drmies (talk) 18:21, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
166. Support I fully understand the perspective of some in the Neutral section, in particular Ad Orientem and Fish and karate, i just happen to disagree; the opposes are just not convincing; and we can always use editors with a clue as admins. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 19:49, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
167. Support Definitely a solid candidate. Deserves the mop. Rollidan (talk) 19:53, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
168. Support Specifically a candidate who is unfamiliar with the bearpit that is WP:ANI, and whose major concern seems to be allowing editors efforts to be properly and promptly promoted within the encyclopedia remit. Yes. LessHeard vanU (talk)
169. Support. Answers to questions sensible, has some audited content under their belt, and their participation in AfDs and WP-space discussions looks reasoned and thorough. I don't see drama in another part of the project as a reason to disqualify candidates. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 22:00, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
170. Support. Trustworthy candidate. Vexations (talk) 22:06, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
171. Support adminds need the trust of the community and this candidate has it, unlike the ironically named T&S. I am not going to withold support for a worthy candidate just because I disagree with the actions of wanna-be autocrats. Find bruce (talk) 23:14, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
172. Support as meeting my minimum criteria and nothing put forth in opposition that appears directly related to the candidate. Ifnord (talk) 00:05, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
173. Support a trustworthy Wikipedian. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:01, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
174. Support – a competent, pleasant, trustworthy editor. She'll be a great admin. – bradv🍁 02:13, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
175. Support excellent editor who will do a great job as an admin. Gizza ^(t)(c) 04:25, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
176. Support – I am acquainted with your contributions at DYK and like your answers to the questions. I waited for a while before adding my support in order to see what the "opposers" would dig up, and I find their reasoning uncompelling! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
177. Support Calm and coolheaded. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:00, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
178. Support. Welcome aboard :) -- œ^™ 12:48, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
179. Support - the candidate's awareness of what they didn't know is a wonderful thing to see (not merely technical, but picking up new areas). I'm barely DYK-initiated, so I can't ask any hard-pitched questions on the area. Other activity looks fine - clear net positive in lieu of evidence to the contrary. Specifically - if you think Admin activity/recruitment should stop during WP:FRAM, and you are an admin - you should have resigned or stop pestering the new candidates. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:05, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
180. Support. Good history of contributions; no concerns. Deryck C. 13:30, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
181. Support: I can't find much of anything to justify opposition at this point, and admitting that one doesn't know is genuinely heartening to see (if only more persons would say so!). Setting aside the ongoing debate, I'm happy to support the candidate. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 17:01, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
182. Support per (rolls dice) Amakuru. Oh, good choice, random number generator! I agree that the opposition based on what unrelated third parties are up to is, to put it mildly, stupid. Candidate has good answers to the questions, demonstrated history of dedication to the project, no significant drama, and knows their weak spots. Happy to support. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:15, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
183. Support. The candidate seems to be one of the most competent out there. Not only does she participate in article creation (like DYK), but also is genuinely interested in helping out with more behind-the-scenes tasks as well. Even within this RFA, the fact that Valereee is able to take negative judgment positively is a good sign of her level-headed demeanor, something that a lot of us don't have nowadays. epicgenius (talk) 18:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
184. Support -- a fine all-around editor with great communication skills. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 20:13, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
185. Support — MRD2014 (talk) 22:42, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
186. Support All around good contributor. Especially appreciate the work that you do at DYK. And I love Cincinnati chili and appreciate you sharing it with the world. :-) Also appreciate the work that you do moving the needle to have more biographies of women. Thank you for volunteering to do extra work. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 00:49, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
187. Support Solid contributor with good judgment. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 01:17, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
188. Support Happy to support. Answers are satisfactory, contributions are good, --jerk, ++clue. CThomas³ (talk) 01:21, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
189. Support No concerns, and DYK needs the help. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 01:43, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
190. Support Antrocent (♫♬) 01:49, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
191. Support Support - Out of good faith, I reviewed the handful of Oppose votes provided so far and they seemed like relatively minor issues that I personally do not see as rising to the level of not being admin-worthy. I understand that there are some important political issues going on with the platform leadership but I don't think that they are necessarily relevant to an individual AFD Michepman (talk) 03:46, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
192. Support per everything above. – Levivich 04:40, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
193. Support Great contributor and communicator, and I see no issues in regards to the areas they wish to apply the admin tools (and I appreciate the nominee's open recognition of their limits). ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 07:13, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
194. Suppport without any reservations or concerns. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:22, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
195. Support after checking logs, deleted content, this user is versed in the tools, and appears to be sensible. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:04, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
196. Support per Megalibrarygirl, strong in both content creation and discussion. ComplexRational (talk) 13:27, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
197. Yes, per Ritchie. GoldenRing (talk) 13:59, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
198. Support without any reservations or concerns for the candidate. I do sympathise with Ad Orientem's neutral position though. Loopy30 (talk) 15:18, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
199. Support, as I can't really see why you weren't an administrator ages ago. Helpful, kind, smart, and never afraid of being wrong. This is what we need in an admin. IceKey8297 is awesome.^{[citation needed]} 16:23, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
200. Support – Like Orville, I have seen Valeree around in the Teahouse and the Help Desk, and have been impressed by her level-headed responses and her willingness to help – both great traits for an admin. –FlyingAce^✈hello 18:24, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
201. Support – An excellent editor.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:28, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
202. Support - no concerns, seems helpful, would be an asset for DYK. --DannyS712 (talk) 18:37, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
203. Support - seems like an excellent candidate for adminship. the wub "?!" 22:01, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
204. Support. Experienced candidate; no concerns. AGK ■ 00:47, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
205. Support. Seems to be a prolific and civil contributor. BernardoSulzbach (talk) 02:03, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
206. Support Reasonable AfD and Admin scores; a steady head and good temperament; has experience of supporting other editors at the Teahouse (which I believe should be seen as of increasing importance in today's welcome and shifting climate of improving new editor interaction, retention and respect); and a contributor to WP:WOMRED. So what's not to like? I note that every single 'oppose' thus far (apart from one SPA which can be ignored) is related to the current WP:FRAMBAN and has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with this editor's competence or trustworthiness to take up the mop; the honourable approach would have been for dissenting editors to have made them in the 'neutral' section, in my view. I have had a number of contacts with this editor, and they have my full confidence. Nick Moyes (talk) 02:17, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
207. Support Experienced; no major issues. It's a clear yes. William2001^(talk) 03:35, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
208. Absolutely. — 🦊 07:38, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
209. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 12:23, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
210. per all of above. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 12:24, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
211. Support with no concerns at all. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:35, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
212. Support this top-notch candidate whose nominators presented well-reasoned arguments in support of an experienced editor who will undoubtedly do the job with integrity, level-headedness, and panache. – Athaenara ✉ 12:41, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
213. Support Beyond all the other respected contributors' arguments here, I am supporting because of FRAMBAN and its fallout. If longtime admins really feel the best thing they can do is resign their tools over this, then I say the sooner the better we get someone the mop who's willing to put that job first. Daniel Case (talk) 20:48, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
214. Support anyone who is foolish brave enough to accept a nomination for adminship during the FRAMBAN incident would make a great admin. - ZLEA _T\^C 22:36, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
215. Support; all indications show a competent and dedicated editor who would do further useful things for the project as an admin. ~ mazca ^talk 02:30, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
216. Support Always a calm, helpful, level-headed editor in AfD discussions, will be a great admin. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:12, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
217. Support Seems well-suited. Collect (talk) 21:52, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
218. Support, partly per this: [1]. As I said at the other concurrent RfA, I have concerns about this myself, but I also realize that life goes on, so it's a real pleasure to see the candidate show clue about the situation. But anyway, what a wonderful candidate! I don't think we've crossed paths before, but her articulateness and good judgment are very evident on this page, and a willingness to recognize one's own limitations is exactly what I want to see. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:03, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
219. (edit conflict) Support I don't see anything wrong here. Invalid^OS (talk) 23:05, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
220. Support I meant to do this days ago but it slipped my mind. You show good judgement, excellent communication skills, competence, and a level head. You'll make a great admin. —Rutebega (talk) 23:46, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
221. Support and don’t F it up :) ! N.J.A. | talk 00:13, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
222. Support. The timing could have been better but with the crisis over that's all water under the bridge. Qualified candidate. Good luck! Haukur (talk) 00:37, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
223. Support, per noms. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:24, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
224. Support. Not sure if I ever had a chance to directly interact with this user but giving them the tools would appear to be a net positive. Also WP:NOBIGDEAL. Aoi (青い) (talk) 06:19, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
225. Support No concerns. The timing of this nomination raises a few eyebrows but nothing more. Nihlus 07:43, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
226. Support Solid candidate. Shellwood (talk) 11:59, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
227. Support: A solid candidate. Thanks for making yourself available; you make a great admin! - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:50, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
228. Support: In my limited interactions with the candidate, they have shown poise and good temperament. My research of their contributions shows the same result and great content contributions/collaborative efforts. I think this all-around editor would be a net positive to the encyclopedia. No concerns. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 14:12, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
229. Support Don't have true reasons to oppose and Wikipedia is in bad need of fresh admins.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 15:27, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
230. Support:- Why not. FitIndia ^Talk 15:32, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
231. Support Stellar candidate and there’s nothing substantial to object too. Grey Wanderer (talk) 16:58, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose unfortunately, per this discussion on the RFA talk page (which your nominators should, frankly have noted and prepared you for); particularly this from {{noping|WereSpielChequers) ("nyone seriously thinking of running for RFA or RFB would do well to wait a little while longer. I doubt anyone could run now without some questions relating to current events, and I suspect that there may be no answer that wouldn't lose some votes"), and Wehwalt who said, "I think it would be more difficult than usual for an RFA to succeed right now. At least some would vote against to keep faith with those who have given up their tools"). Basically, let WP:FRAM blow over first; nothing personal of course. As the feller said, "it's business, Sonny, not personal". ——SerialNumber54129 17:15, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

   Discussion moved to the talk page. Primefac (talk) 20:24, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

2. Oppose. The candidate shows poor judgement in the timing of this nomination and in her membership of WiR. Eric Corbett 14:49, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

   Could you elaborate on how being a Women in Red member shows poor judgement? (Or tell me if I’ve just misinterpreted your comment) Trialpears (talk) 15:45, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

   @Trialpears: WiR tweeted something controversial about Fram. See mid-way through this discussion. Anarchyte (talk | work) 15:55, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

   Eric cannot reply here as he is topic banned from doing so per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility_enforcement#Appeals_and_modifications, so there's no point prolonging this discussion. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:04, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

   Dear Eric, if you look at the candidate's edits such as to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Cornbleet I think you might find her the sort of WiR participant who wants notable Women to be covered on Wikipedia. ϢereSpielChequers 16:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

3. Oppose I think we should hold off on all new RfAs until the WMF resolves the current FRAMBAN case. Hlevy2 (talk) 21:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
4. Oppose unless and until FRAMGATE is sorted out. This is not the time to be discussing new prospects for adminship when it is evident the WMF clearly does not trust and is willing to star-chamber them. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 03:45, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
5. Oppose- — Sachinthonakkara (talk The preceding unsigned comment was added at 07:27, 4 July 2019 (UTC) (UTC).
6. Oppose. No judgement on merits and demerits of the candidate. Timing of the RFA suggests it has currrent crisis has been exploited with expectation that fears of losing admins will help. They did indeed and this RFA is going to pass. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 13:30, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

   You do not care to review the logs of the candidate, but instead comment on your perceptions of the motives of the two nominators - who happen to be among the best regarded contributors currently editing? I am certain the 'crat will give your comments its due worth, which is why I have taken the time to respond instead. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:25, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

   Difficult to ignore the signature, teal and turquoise, thought I was getting glaucoma. cygnis insignis 14:29, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

   Comment: I have no trouble with the "Timing of the RFA" nor do I agree with the comment on perceptions of the motives of the two nominators. We need good admins! I am thankful that these candiates have come forward. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:44, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

7. Oppose – Not the best fit. CLCStudent (talk) 18:17, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
8. Oppose per recent statements [2][3][4] arguing that Wikipedia has a "sports problem" due to the gender gap existing in part as a result of sports biographies, which I find a completely misguided approach to content. --Pudeo (talk) 23:36, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral No opinion on the candidate though I am almost always favorably disposed to candidates supported by the nom. And I respectfully disagree with my colleague Serial Number 54129's opposition and their rational above. However, I will admit that I find the timing to be inopportune given recent and ongoing events and I don't feel comfortable directly participating in an RfA in the present circumstances. These are difficult days for the community and we all have to act in obedience to our respective consciences. For now, mine is telling me to sit out RfAs until the current unpleasantness is resolved. That said, I bow in respect to all of my fellow editors regardless of where you stand and I particularly thank the candidate for stepping up. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:25, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
2. Neutral I entirely agree with Ad Orientem - I don't feel comfortable supporting RfAs given the current crisis. Especially since one of the major symptoms of that crisis is adminstrator resignations. I don't think that it's worthy of an oppose, but the timing is inopportune. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 19:45, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

   Point taken, but as per my response to SN54129 above (and on the Kosack RfA), even in wartime, people get married and babies are born; I don't think it is fair to blame Valereee for the WMF's actions. Even if WMF tell us all to "get stuffed" post the ArbCom letter, and everybody leaves and Wikipedia becomes a version of Reddit, Valereee still deserves to know after their years of long service, whether they made the grade or not. That is all Valereee is asking, and I think we owe it to Valereee to give an answer. Britishfinance (talk) 19:59, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

   Hi BF. I'm not objecting to the RfA. Just its timing. And unless I am seriously misreading their comment, I believe the same is true of Bellezzasolo. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:55, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

   Thanks AO, but that was what I meant about "even in wartime, people get married and babies are born". This affair may go one for months, or conclude by next Friday; regardless, I think we should give the candidates our views? Britishfinance (talk) 21:24, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

   Getting married and having babies wasn't an issue in any war I can recall. What's going on now, directly touches on how we operate and the relationship between the community and the WMF, which in turn touches on adminship. If it's over by next Friday, assuming a positive outcome, then I will be asking for the bit back next weekend. If it's still going on months from now, I will be long gone. In any event I don't want this to become a distraction so I think this is a situation where we are going to have to agree to disagree. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:01, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

   Britishfinance, I'm going to expand on my rationale a bit. Primarily, I'm not current ready to put in the time required to review an RfA, due to the WMF. However, there is more. Adminship is a role where appearances matter. That's the prime reason for WP:INVOLVED - the admin has to be seen to be a neutral arbiter. In some cases, timing matters. Valereee did have the ability to determine the timing of the RfA. In view of the spate of admin resignations, an RfA, rightly or (very likely) wrongly, can give the impression of trying to replace the departed. Some time to settle matters down (especially since there is potentially a resolution in sight) I think would have been prudent. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 21:55, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

   Bellezzasolo. I hear you and respect your point. We, and Valeree (and Kosack), don't know when this will get sorted, and in what form, so the choice of timing is impossible for them. Many great admins/crats have handed back the tools, however, I consider their gesture to be more significant than that of a "strike", it was to show WMF how serious the situation had become (even Jimbo recognised this now on his talk page saying: making it clear (through strikes/retirements) that something is unacceptable is a totally respectable and useful way to move the needle in an important way). It now seems the strength, and integrity, of their gesture has been heard, and we all now await the rresponse. While waiting, I think giving my fellow Wikipedians my answer to a question they have spent years building up to (+decade in both cases), to be a good use of time; it shows that none of the craziness has lessened what it means to be a Wikipedian (something the WMF are still learning), and our respect for one another. For this project to have a future, it needs that respect imho; otherwise, let the machines/WMF run it. Britishfinance (talk) 22:53, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

   Well said. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:34, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

3. per Addy. I know the candidate. If this was in different circumstances, i would have supported/will support. But currently, i cant. It is my humble suggestion to withdraw nomination, and run the RfA after current issues are resolved. But thats just my opinion. Still, i am firmly neutral though. —usernamekiran(talk) 23:27, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

   @Britishfinance:, and Addy, I fixed the indents to make my vote #2. No violation of editing other's comment policy —usernamekiran(talk) 23:27, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

4. Neutral Wikipedia needs more admins. The WMF deserves fewer admins. Not voting but I wish the candidate well. Fish+Karate 06:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
5. Neutral per Fish and Karate. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 11:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
6. Neutral Candidates can control the timing of their RfAs and in my opinion they should have waited. I cannot support in the current circumstances.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:25, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
7. Neutral Because of present circumstances onwiki & off. Shearonink (talk) 18:00, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
8. Neutral She sounds great but now is not the time, as per User:Fish and Karate.Ingratis (talk) 19:03, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

   Neutral though not through specific fault of the candidate. It's just that now is not a good time to run for adminship, until the air clears. Be that as it may, it looks like this RFA will be passing anyway. --WaltCip (talk) 19:48, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

9. Neutral pretty much per Ad Orientem - Valereee sounds like an excellent candidate however due to the FRAM issues right now I cannot support any RFA, It's a shame these weren't held off a few months once the dust had settled, If it helps in any way if the FRAM thing didn't exist I would've 110% supported, Regardless of my vote I wish you the best of luck here. –Davey2010^Talk 12:58, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
10. Neutral - "I hate it when other editors have to fix my mistakes." Uh, I understand how that feels, but something about that comes off as a bit arrogant, and I generally have difficulty supporting people if they come off as trying to be perfect. Foxnpichu (talk) 14:30, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
11. Neutral - per Fish+Karate. -- CptViraj (📧) 16:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
12. Neutral - per Foxnpichu. Wishing the user the best of luck, Willbb234 (talk) 08:38, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

General comments

• @Ritchie333: I see that question 4 came "via email" but there is no indication of who asked it. We don't typically entertain anonymous submissions to RfAs. Could you elaborate on the source of this question? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Also see Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Anonymous Questions in RFA. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:31, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.