Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Megalibrarygirl

Megalibrarygirl

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (113/0/0); Scheduled to end 20:27, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Nomination

Megalibrarygirl (talk · contribs) – Megalibrarygirl (Susan) seems to be able to work miracles. Her specialist subject is biographies of women, of which we have many, and it seems I can throw just about any article with a CSD or AfD tag on it in her direction, and it will be fixed. Her AfD stats over the past year, while impressive in themselves, don't tell the whole story - for many of the debates, she doesn't just vote "keep", she improves the article and fixes immediate problems so that everyone else votes "keep" as well. She is the living embodiment of the Heymann Standard. On top of that, her talk page is full of civil and polite replies to newcomers getting started and trying to get their writing skills off the ground, and is filled with barnstars from editors happy to have worked with her.

Now I'm not going to beat around the bush - Susan is a writer first and an admin second, and I hope that situations remains. However, there are enough appropriate tasks on the project, such as being able to restore and improve articles listed at WP:REFUND, or to reverse WP:G13 deletions of drafts, that there is a clean net positive in giving her the tools. We sometimes say "do I trust this editor with the delete button?" Well I trust this editor with the restore button. I hope you agree. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:14, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Co-nomination

This is my first RfA co-nomination, and it is given with an unwavering confidence in Megalibrarygirl as our next Admin. I’ve known Sue on-wiki since her early months as an editor. Seems to me that she has always been a prolific content writer and I hope that continues after she receives the tools. Her forte is research; she’s a public librarian. A cursory review of her talkpage posts should make it evident that she’s kind towards all. She is helpful with newbies, taking them under her wing. She takes on new responsibilities like a true professional, and asks questions when in doubt. Some examples of her administrative roles at Women in Red include: (a) “Librarian-in-Residence” (b) MassMessaging coordinator, and (c ) recruitment coordinator (working with a new tool). She does a lot of work at AfD where her comments are well-reasoned. I’ve never seen Sue act in haste or be hot-headed. Off-wiki, she's a delight. I met her in Berlin where she represented WikiWomen's User Group at the 2016 Wikimedia Conference and participated in the Movement Strategy Direction sessions. Sue is adept with social media; she is one of the @wikiwomeninred Twitter admins. Given the tools, Megalibrarygirl will be appropriate with the ones she chooses to use. She has my Strongest Support and I’m asking you to consider offering the same. --Rosiestep (talk) 22:20, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept the nomination. Thank you, Ritchie333 and Rosiestep for your guidance and encouragement! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:03, 9 October 2017 (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. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: It is important to me to aid the other adminstators on the Women in Red WikiProject. There are only a few very active administrators doing a lot of the heavy lifting behind the scenes. One of our major admins, Rosiestep, is also very active in other projects. We need more hands on deck. We are a very active project, doing both virtual and physical (real world) editathons. Being able to help with article moves is important. In addition, being able to grant user account permissions, such as "account creator" is important for our work with editathons. I am also interested in working with articles deleted through G13 criteria. This becomes very important in rescuing articles about notable women created during editathons that were not properly sourced by the author of the article.

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

A: Specific examples of articles rescued through WP HEY: User:Megalibrarygirl#Articles rescued from AfD through WP:HEY. My favorite is Alice Henson Ernst, who is a playwright with virtually no information available online, except that which was buried in databases. The AfD was withdrawn after I worked on it.

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've rarely had editing conflicts. However, when I do have interpersonal conflicts I try to remain firm, polite and impartial. I've started making sure I take time before replying in a situation that may become inflammatory. I am willing to admit my own mistakes and take ownership of them which I think helps in many situations.

---

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 Dane

4. Can you give an example of a situation where you made a mistake or had a conflict and how you recovered from it?

A: Hi Dane! I've made plenty of mistakes, but a recent one is a good example. I was reviewing an AfC submission, Anna Spitzmüller, and left a comment about it needing additional sources and told the writer to contact me if they needed help. I hoped they had more sources, because I wasn't turning up much on my own. The writer of the article came to my talk page and was very frustrated. They came from an academic background which views sources differently from Wikipedia standards and where original research is encouraged. I called two editors into the discussion who have helped me with articles written about people whose primary language isn't English and where the topic is academic. Their assessment of the article helped me make a decision to move the article out of draft space. (I often rely on people who know more than I do about various topics to make decisions where I lack their skill or knowledge.) However, the creator of the article was still frustrated. I felt terrible that I had provided someone with a negative experience on Wikipedia! Myself and the other editors tried to help the editor, but I feel that I may have turned off someone with a valuable background in non-English speaking women's bios from editing in the future. After thinking about this recently, I think I may be even more specific about how I word comments on AfC. I also think that it's important for me to realize that I can't always be successful. I went into the situation in good faith and I still mucked it up and that will happen to us all. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:32, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Additional question from Steel1943

5. What is your extent of experience in the aspects of Wikipedia that do not pertain to article creation, improvement, or deletion? (Examples of non-article boards are WP:AIV, WP:RFPP, WP:SPI, any XfD board [not including WP:AFD], WP:ANI, etc.)

A:

Additional question from SoWhy

6. Communication is one of the most important aspects of adminship. For many, myself included, this includes using edit summaries to communicate the changes you made. You only use them in 77% of all edits, including 79% of your last 150 major edits. Can you explain why? And would you be willing to change your approach here?

A:

Additional question from DGG ( talk )

7 You write "to aid the other adminstators on the Women in Red WikiProject. There are only a few very active administrators doing a lot of the heavy lifting behind the scenes." To what extent are specialist administrators working on a particular project appropriate? Do you mean to imply that other administrators do not deal fairly with subjects in this area? If it is not that you are likely to give preferential treatment, why was the project mentioned? If it's only a question of advice and being able to answer questions, why is there a need for it to come from an admin? Otherwise, does it mean that you intend to give those working in this area special consideration? (I know questioning matters like this tends to be taboo around here, but I feel that is all he more reason why the question must be asked.)

A

;Additional question from Xxanthippe

8. Question. Have you discussed the editing of Wikipedia on any forums outside Wikipedia? If so, could you give links to your discussions? Xxanthippe (talk) 08:59, 10 October 2017 (UTC).

Admin intervention: there seems to be some agreement (General comments, below) that this question is inappropriate. I won't remove it, though maybe someone else will, but I will strike it, with this note indicating that the candidate should have no qualms whatsoever about skipping it. Drmies (talk) 14:32, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Additional question from Tigraan

9. This is to some extent an extension of Q7, so feel free to answer it above if more convenient. In Q1 you mention the need for administrators to help with article moves, give the account creator flag, and refund G13'd articles. Could you tell why, exactly, an admin is needed for the first two? (Page moves can be done by non-admins, and you could presumably use Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Account creator as needed.)

A:

Additional question from Anoptimistix

10. Can you please explain the concept of History merge and how to perform it ?

A:

Additional question from Anoptimistix

11. You have some good content contributions under your belt but this is also true that you don't have articles with GA or FA status (correct me if I'm wrong). Do you think a GA or a FA badge matters ? I personally don't think it matters, what is your opinion about it ?

A:

Discussion

• Links for Megalibrarygirl: Megalibrarygirl (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Megalibrarygirl 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 as nominator Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:27, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
2. Strong support as co-nominator. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:50, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
3. Support. I'm going to give an early support, because I have had some very positive editing collaborations with the candidate, and because I like the idea of an admin who can help with women's topics. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:45, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
4. Megasupport Hyperbolick (talk) 20:48, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
5. Support Good on content, XfD, and anti-vandalism.—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 20:50, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
6. Support meets my criteria: has a clue; not a jerk. That's enough for me. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:50, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
7. Support without a touch of hesitation. (*and thanks for all of your hard work along the way*) - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 20:51, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
8. Support Bottom line: will not break the wiki. Even if Megalibrarygirl only makes adminning a relatively small portion of her work, any amount of help is welcome from someone so trustworthy. And WP:NOBIGDEAL notwithstanding, I also think the example her collaborative and civil demeanor sets will be a valuable addition to the admin corps even when not specifically using the tools. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:52, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
9. Support, no problems here. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 20:57, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
10. Support a star editor who would make good use of the Admin tools to do even more useful stuff for the encyclopedia. PamD 20:58, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
11. Support Experienced, level-headed user. Jon Kolbert (talk) 20:59, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
12. Support Just the type of admin we need among our ranks. As an admin who does more writing than admin-ing, I agree that certain admin tools are useful even if one's goal isn't to do administrative tasks day in and day out. Can be trusted with the tools even if she's not going to be using them constantly. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:01, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
13. Support No concerns, no hesitation. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 21:02, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
14. Support per nom and User:Calliopejen1 Mrmei 21:14, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
15. Support Absolutely. Mkdw ^talk 21:10, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
16. Support - I've always been impressed positively by this editor. CLUEful, helpful, civilful, and been around (edit count and time) enough to prove HEREful. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:11, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
17. Support Editor who does plenty of editing and will put admin tools to good use. Full support. Pagliaccious (talk) 21:22, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
18. Support per nom and AfD --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 21:24, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
19. Per Rosiestep. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:27, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
20. Support Excellent candidate: so per nom and per Megalibrarygirl. Communicative and knowledgeable- just what the wikidoctor ordered. — fortunavelut luna 21:27, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
21. Support. This is clearly a fully qualified candidate. Mz7 (talk) 21:28, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
22. Support - No problems, and she would use the admin tools to improve our lack-luster coverage of women; she would be a great addition to the admin corps. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 21:29, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
23. Support (edit conflict × 2) per nom. And to anticipate some of the likely Opposes--it's not about the exact amount of good the candidate could do as an admin. All that matters to me personally is that she is a definite net positive; any amount of additional benefit from having the tools is better than no additional benefit at all. --Joshualouie711^talk 21:30, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
24. Support precious (2015). I believe Sue would talk before blocking. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:32, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
25. Support: I first came across Megalibrarygirl on an AfD I nominated where she promptly turned up, vastly improved the content and left me a nice note on my talk page. Clearly on it with content creation and has a good eye for rescuing articles as well as deleting appropriate ones, shown by her AfD stats. The aforementioned message shows real maturity and here-ness because she said she enjoyed cleaning the article up. DrStrauss talk 21:33, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
26. Support Have seen good things, no concerns. Gap9551 (talk) 21:33, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
27. Support No concerns at all. --I am One of Many (talk) 21:33, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
28. Support She may not spend all her time mopping up admin backlogs, but I have no doubt that when she does use the tools she'll use them well. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:35, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
29. Support per nom Andrevan@ 21:38, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
30. Support Megalibrarygirl I recall somewhat vaguely a situation where I misjudged sources and you caught it; the exact circumstances are unimportant to the moral. I usually beat myself up on such a lapse but your response brimmed with understanding when anyone else may have taken the opportunity to kick me while I was down. Your composure and benevolence are traits that need to be shared with the community which is why I full-heartedly support this nomination.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:41, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
31. Support. I was feeling a bit disappointed by the way RFAs had been going, then I just popped in for another look before I go to bed and seeing this one cheered me up :-) Superb contributor, very collegial and helpful, and so an easy support. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:44, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
32. Support. Looks okay to me. Deb (talk) 21:49, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
33. Support per nom. Megalibrarygirl seems to me like a friendly, helpful and competent user who can be trusted with the tools. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 21:52, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
34. Support I can think of very few editors who are not yet admins whom I would more enthusiastically support. Gamaliel (talk) 21:56, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
35. Support the enthusiastic support of so many editors demonstrates to me that this candidate will be a net-positive with the tools. Lepricavark (talk) 22:00, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
36. Support: No issues overall; net positive on handling the mop. KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 22:08, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
37. Support per nom statement. I haven't found any standout issues. Anarchyte (work | talk) 22:09, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
38. Support Extremely helpful and a very competent mentor, knowledgeable about policy, and good content editor. SusunW (talk) 22:10, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
39. Support Unconditional support. Megalibrarygirl has been one of the most selfless and helpful editors I've encountered. Nothing but good experience with this editor. — Maile (talk) 22:16, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
40. Support WiR reminds me of the early days where editors actively help and support each other, and this editor is a an integral part of that warm and friendly culture. Definitely yes. Alex Shih^Talk 22:19, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
41. Support. From her work on WiR I feel she'd be a great admin. Funcrunch (talk) 22:38, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
42. Support Does not raise any concerns, a pleasant and collegial editor who seems very unlikely to abuse the tools, the position of trust, or her peers. Neil S. Walker (t@lk) 22:54, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
43. Support - no concerns. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 23:01, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
44. Support She can do it! Andrew D. (talk) 23:04, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
45. Support, on the basis that it is a travesty that she isn't already one. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:12, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
46. Support per noms. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:22, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
47. Support. Megalibrarygirl is a hardworking and conscientious editor. I am confident she will use the tools to make this a better encyclopedia. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 23:37, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
48. Support per the answer to Q4 that I asked. I'm confident she will be a net positive to the team. -- Dane ^talk 23:52, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
49. Support Easy support, I've seen this user around all the time on the pages I edit and she does great work. I was actually looking at her page the other day and had the impression she was an admin - so this RfA kind of surprised me! SEMMENDINGER (talk) 23:57, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
50. Strong support Excellent content creator and have just the right temperament for admin-ship. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 23:59, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
51. Support Level headed and competent. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:14, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
52. Support per noms. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:20, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
53. Support: No issues found. —MRD2014 ^{Talk • Edits • Help!} 00:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
54. Support, great asset to Wikipedia now, and more so with the admin tools. Thanks for volunteering for the extra tools. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 00:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
55. Strong Support: Diplomatic, hard-working, a voice of reason, level-headed and competent. What we need in admins. Montanabw^(talk) 00:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
56. Support Excellent contributor, net positive to the project. Winner 42 Talk to me! 01:01, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
57. Support Absolutely - I could go on about qualifications, but it would be a TL;DR so I'll just repeat what I said at the start - AB-SO-LUTE-LY! ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:11, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
58. Support - More than sufficient tenure and experience and I have no reason to think she would misuse the tools, so I'm happy to support. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
59. Support Very clueful editor who I would trust with the tools.  gongshow  talk  01:22, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
60. Support per WP:NOBIGDEAL.--v/r - TP 01:29, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
61. Support lots of clue at AfD, saves articles, several nice GAs, seems wonderfully helpful, calm and polite. Hand her the mop! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:44, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
62. Support Easy. Don't think there is much that needs to be said. Equineducklings (talk) 01:46, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
63. Support An obvious yes. SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 01:49, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
64. Support. Clear net positive. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:53, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
65. Support. Welcome aboard. :) -- œ^™ 02:02, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
66. Support I think I would have supported based upon nothing but the answer to Q4 alone. We should all strive to treat others as well. CThomas³ (talk) 02:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
67. Support don't suppose this can be snow-closed as successful? This is a good RFA.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 02:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
68. Support. Happy to support this. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:38, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
69. Support Impeccable and absolutely impressive credentials. Lourdes 02:47, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
70. Support probably be a better admin then me! (don't answer that...)--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:54, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
71. Support - Yes, yes, yes. Megalibrarygirl has saved a phenomenal number of articles from deletion and goes about Wikipedia with a great mindset: that of creating quality content. Altamel (talk) 03:23, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
72. Support Net positive. -- Begoon 03:53, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
73. WP:TTWOA. Vanamonde (talk) 04:12, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
74. Support Stikkyy t/c 04:31, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
75. Support Why not? Double sharp (talk) 04:49, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
76. Support per Rosiestep .Well versed in policy ,experienced ,dedicated and fully committed to the Project both online and offline.Would be asset to the Project with tools.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:04, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
77. Support per nom. A formidably competent editor, I can't think of a single thing that would reduce my support even a tiny bit. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 05:25, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
78. Support Why not? -FASTILY 05:31, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
79. Support A great candidate. I had concerns during her RfA candidate poll that there didn't seem to be a need for the tools (despite a great record at AfD, you don't need to be an admin to close as 'keep'). However, I think that the need of the tools to restore deleted content definitively silences any concerns I had. I also think that she will be a real help to the Women in Red project. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 05:45, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
80. Support Very supportive towards newbies. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:48, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
81. Support no doubt whatsoever. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:18, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
82. Support Seems good. My name continues to not be dave (talk) 06:25, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
83. Support There are many good reasons to support this candidate. Especially for me, I believe that any editor who consistently saves articles from deletion by expanding them and improving their references deserves to be called an encyclopedist, and we need more level-headed people like that as administrators. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:34, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
84. Support No issues.  Philg88 ^♦talk 06:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
85. Civil, clueful and contributes good work. Happy to be able to support. ϢereSpielChequers 06:38, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
86. Support - great candidate, clear net positive. Tazerdadog (talk) 06:41, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
87. Support - wholly qualified, everyone above me has hit the nail on the head as to why. A rather obvious candidate -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 06:58, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
88. Support - excellent editor and, if I may say, has a terrific user name for an encyclopedia-themed superhero. Reyk _YO! 07:00, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
89. Support Yup. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 07:32, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
90. Support – filelakeshoe (t / c)  08:32, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
91. Pile-on support - something tells me you've got this in the bag! Best of luck. :) Patient Zero^talk 08:33, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
92. Support - Absolutely. I asked MLG about adminship a while back, and would have co-nominated if I'd known she was going for it! Sam Walton (talk) 08:46, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
93. Support per user:Hyperbolick (#4 vote) —usernamekiran(talk) 08:58, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
94. Support, I am not impressed with the idea of being an admin for a particular project, on the other hand, I have seen the candidate around and I am confident she will use the tools appropriately.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
95. Support, of course. Fully qualified candidate. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:06, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
96. Support – why not? Graham87 09:23, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
97. Support - Female wikipedian + good content creator (349 live articles) + expands existing articles + good communication = Net positive Anoptimistix (talk) 09:29, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
98. Support Oripaypaykim (talk) 09:38, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
99. Support - sounds like the ideal candidate. Stellar content contribution and a nice person, with need for some of the tools. Good luck!  — Amakuru (talk) 09:45, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
100. Support per Boing! said Zebedee and Alex Shih. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:47, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
101. Strong support - A multiplicity of reasons! Adityavagarwal (talk) 10:38, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
102. Strong support - In my experience, this editor will only help the project. SethWhales ^talk 11:06, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
103. Support - Good candidate here, but I would like to see a bit more counter-vandalism experience. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 11:12, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
104. Strong support My opinion mirrors everyone else !voting support here, she will be a great admin. I have got involved in the WIR project myself recently and have seen some of her work, which is consistently good quality. Her ability to source articles is very good and I have no concerns at all about any lack of experience, she knows what to do, and how to do it. I have no concerns about her being specialized either, focusing on a widespread issue like the lack of articles on women is a good cause and not IMO a topic specialism that would be an issue - in short she is a good candidate. Dysklyver 11:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
105. Support. In my opinion one of our very best contributors; giving her the admin tools can only be a net benefit for the project. – Joe (talk) 11:40, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
106. Support - Excellent candidate, No issues!, Good luck :) –Davey2010^Talk 11:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
107. Support Very happy to show my support to this clearly qualified candidate. Thank you for volunteering. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 11:57, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
108. Support Absolute slam dunk of a choice here. One of the best content contributors I can recall seeing. Excellent plus to give her the tools. RickinBaltimore (talk) 11:58, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
109. Support Not a user I think I've encountered before, so had to do some digging. Having engaged in a bit of research - hell yes; eminently suited to holding a mop. Yunshui ^雲_水 12:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
110. Support. Wikipedia needs more admins familiar with the Dewy Decimal System. Also I do not think she will adopt the Conan the Librarian approach to admin tasks. ZettaComposer (talk) 12:14, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
111. Support Experienced editor.  FITINDIA  13:04, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
112. Support. I haven't run into her as much, but what I've seen has been good and many people I trust have voiced their support for her. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
113. Support because I would like content writers to have an easier time at RfA. Airbornemihir (talk) 13:40, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

General comments

• Is it it just me, or is Q.8 rather (and/or completely) innappropriate? — fortunavelut luna 13:44, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

  I thought the same. Neil S. Walker (t@lk) 13:46, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

  Totally out of order. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:55, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

  Agreed. If there is a specific incident behind that question, Xxanthippe, I would suggest to either give the context if you can, or strike it if you cannot. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:00, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Answering it could lead to WP:OUTING, question 8 should be removed. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:21, 10 October 2017 (UTC)