Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Femke

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

Femke

Final: (200/2/2) - Closed as successful by Acalamari at 08:30, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination

First registering an account in 2013, Femke has been active for over four years, specifically with a handful of Good articles, and pages fixed from being removed as

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination and thank both Lee and Barkeep for their kind words. I have never edited for pay and I have never edited with alternative accounts. Femke (talk) 08:42, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

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

1. Why are you interested in becoming an administrator?

A: Many admin tasks are done by one or a handful of editors, making these areas vulnerable to editors burning out or otherwise disengaging. I think I can help out at

WP:AE

, where long waiting times can be stressful for those involved.

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

A: I'm most proud of my work on

WP:Third Opinion requests. On the non-content side, I'm pleased with my revival of The Core Contest

, which brings out the best in many editors

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

Optional question from 0xDeadbeef

4. Have you ever suspected someone of

WP:PERM

requests?

A: Browsing through

WP:PERM

I've certainly seen requests where hat collecting may have been an issue. Factors I would take into account is a clear articulation why the editor wants a perm, and the competence for the specific perm. For instance, when evaluating an editor for PCR, I would want to see some general experience, no recent warnings, and a decent understanding of vandalism or other unacceptable edits. When in doubt, I would ask a question. If an editor asks for multiple perms at once, I will more closely look at the need for each.

Optional question from Ixtal

5. Would you be open to recall? If so, under what conditions?

A: Yes: I would not want to continue as an admin if I do not maintain the confidence of the community. I would base my recall criteria on User:Nosebagbear/Recall with slightly lower thresholds for triggering the procedure. Addendum – NBB's recall criteria specify that 15 individuals sign, I would lower that to 10.

Optional question from Dreamy Jazz

6. I'd like to preface that you have my support and you can choose to skip this if you want. What would you do if an editor requested the

account creator

user group because they wanted to run an editathon?

A: The more appropriate perm for somebody who wants to run an editathon is event coordinator, which does not grant an editor the ability to create user names that are on the black list. I would follow Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Event coordinator/Administrator instructions, and depending on tenure, no red flags, and whether the outreach is recurring, give the event coordinator perm permanently or temporarily. For highly experienced editors, who may have had a reason to ask for the account creator instead, I will then also ask if they had a specific reason to request account creator. I would give the event coordinator perm (if appropriate), rather than wait for an answer, to minimise the risk that the event will have passed already by the time the question has been answered and the next admin comes around.

Optional question from Robert McClenon

7. What experience do you have in Wikipedia conflict resolution, either in content disputes or in conduct disputes (knowing that they often overlap)?

A: Conflict resolution is a broad term, so I'll give a broad answer.
My primary experience of conflict resolution comes from editing in contentious topics. Climate change and energy-related articles can attract activists (be it conservative or progressive), who struggle with the neutrality and civility policies on Wikipedia. Many places online are more hostile than Wikipedia, and it takes some explaining before they understand community norms (or realise community norms are at odds with their editing, and leave). A few times, the normal dispute resolution techniques have not worked or conduct issues were too serious, and I've had to seek the admin noticeboards (such as at AE, SPI, and ANI)
I’ve also helped resolve outside conflicts, mostly via

WP:AfD

Discussion

• Links for Femke: Femke (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Femke 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 net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:46, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support easy decision. Even if I didn't know Femke's excellent work and serene temperament, I could happily support on the basis of the nominators, who I trust. Glad to see someone looking to (eventually) work at AE, which is perennially understaffed as it's not a particularly attractive area for admins to work. firefly ( t · c ) 08:54, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support I see no reason to oppose. PhantomTech[talk] 08:57, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support Easily! –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 08:59, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support of course. Amazing content creator. Best of luck! –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:00, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support good luck!
   not) 09:02, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
   ]
7. Support Seems knowledgeable of policy - unlikely to abuse the tools. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 09:04, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support! Chlod (say hi!) 09:08, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support: outstanding content work, as one of not-that-many editors to improve vital and high-importance articles. Expertise in enviromental areas is clear, and a bilingual editor with knowledge of another Wikipedia is always good. Excellent temperament from some spotchecks. — Bilorv (talk) 09:12, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
10. Strong Support I have seen her positive work and think she’d be a wonderful asset in many areas, particularly AE, an area that requires both level-headedness and deeper content knowledge. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 09:13, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support as nominator. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:17, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support. In addition to highly impressive content creation and persuasive nominations, the candidate’s calm, constructive talk page archive attests to the "serene temperament" Firefly mentions—a particular credit to an editor working in a potentially contentious area. Very much the knowledge and temperament I’d like to see in the admin corps. Thank you! Innisfree987 (talk) 09:18, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support Had me at civil. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 09:19, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support - no concerns. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:22, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
15. Steun Nog één? Waarom niet.
    ~Styyx^Talk? 09:25, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
16. Support Why not? --Victor Trevor (talk) 09:39, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support Normally I like seeing candidates having good back-end experience to demonstrate the "has a clue" aspect for tool use. Someone who can comply with all the rules for FA is likely to be able to meet all the rules for most backend areas. Femke is somewhat anomalous in having lots of AfD NACs with very few AfD !votes. Having reviewed the last 20, there do not seem to be any issues with them. As another good sign of their behaviour in the backend fields, I suggest having a read of her proposed AfC improvements as another good sign of their judgement. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I would furthermore say (and indeed have done in the past several times) that anyone who can stop an FA being delisted at FAR, which by definition involves listening to concerns and criticism, and resolving them with good writing and communication, can walk up to AIV with no experience at all and do a better job than somebody who ticked all the boxes at the Counter Vandalism Unit Academy. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:57, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I might frame that comment in flashing neon lights. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:29, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18. Support Not a jerk, has a clue, writes FAs. Easy support. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:51, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    quite eloquent -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:53, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

19. Support We need more civil, supportive admins.Nosebagbear makes an interesting point about FA's. Trust the nominators. I like her choices in work areas and her concern for those involved in stressful situations. And so on. Per other supports above as well.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:54, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support No reason why not, seems to be a net positive. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:55, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support, an excellent core of understanding article writing and content (even where we have disagreed), topped off with a propensity to seek consensus and engage in high-quality discussion. CMD (talk) 09:56, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support Manages to do great content work in controversial areas, all while keeping a cool head. Will make a good admin. Schwede66 10:00, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support I'm behind any candidate nominated by either Lee or Barkeep. To have both puts me beyond sure. ––FormalDude talk 10:04, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support Why not? —Reading Beans (talk) 10:09, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support Good editor with experience in editing controversial topics, like climate change.
    talk) 10:22, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
26. Support - wow, Femke is one of those editors that I had assumed was already an admin; her work on articles such as climate change and Earth (which she managed to rescue and bring up to scratch at a recent FAR) is outstanding, and she has all the experience necessary to wield the tools. Clearly not a jerk, clearly has a clue, and has clearly created content, so good to go. Welcome to the admin corps!  — Amakuru (talk) 10:24, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support – I had the pleasure of briefly meeting Femke at a virtual UK editors' meetup, and found her insight and passion for our project impressive. On-wiki, I concur with Lee and Barkeep that her major content contributions to articles on climate science are indicative of a talent for constructive collaboration and sound judgement. I also think her priorities as an editor – vital articles and reviving
    WP:TCC – show a deep appreciation of our educational purpose and serving readers, something I think even experienced editors can lose sight of when they become more involved in the bureaucratic side of things. As others have noted, I think her skill-set and temperament is particularly suitable for AE, an underappreciated (some would say thankless) but essential task. Jr8825 • Talk 10:29, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
28. Support Good editor -
    talk) 10:31, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
29. Support without a doubt. –
    ^T∕_C 10:32, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
30. Support My impression of Femke is based on her performance at climate change. My take is that someone who is able to handle this tricky, complex topic with such circumspicion and collegiality over multiple years has thereby shown her capacity for doing the same in general admin areas. Go forth and mop. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:42, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support, great editor with a good reason for the tools. The nominator's content side is probably one of the best on Wikipedia, as she is the coordinator of
    Vital Articles from FAR. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 11:04, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
32. Support good track record of content creation, experience of working in the difficult area of climate science (both on and off Wikipedia) and nominations from people with a strong track record in identifying excellent administrator candidates. Nick (talk) 11:04, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support thanks for volunteering Vexations (talk) 11:26, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
34. As nom. Barkeep49 (talk) 11:35, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support - adminship should be no big deal, and the nominee is a trusted, experienced editor who evidently has the right temperament. —Ganesha811 (talk) 11:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support, succes met de verkiezingen--Ymblanter (talk) 11:44, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support. Capable, committed, and I think they can be trusted. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:49, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support Thank you for choosing to be a candidate.
    talk) 12:07, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
39. Support Delighted to see this. Easy support from me as I'm familiar with her good work around the project (e.g., assisting new editors at the Help Desk or brainstorming ways to improve the AFC experience) and I trust her to use the tools wisely. Thanks for volunteering. DanCherek (talk) 12:08, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support
    Banks Irk (talk) 12:09, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
41. Support having met Femke at (virtual) meetups, I have no doubt that they will do a good job as an admin. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 12:13, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support Glad to see them running. Hog Farm _Talk 12:39, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support, excellent candidate with plenty of clue and experience, great work, and might volunteer at AE. —Kusma (talk) 12:44, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
44. Fine by me. — Trey Maturin has spoken 12:51, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support No reason to say no, strong background, long history of service, works on important topics. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 13:06, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support This editor is well-deserving of admin and handles conversations well at Talk:Climate change. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 13:08, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support Sensible, temperate, wise, excellent content work. These are my admin criteria and this editor meets them. Central and Adams (talk) 13:39, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support Why not? Sea Cow (talk) 13:41, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support Nothing but good experiences with this user, and if Lee thinks highly of them... — GhostRiver 14:10, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
50. Great candidate. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 14:11, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support Impressive work and skill in difficult matters. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:12, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
52. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:14, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support after reviewing their talk page and some of their contribs. A fine candidate. — Diannaa (talk) 14:16, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
54. Strong Support. I just hope it doesn't take her away from content work too much. Johnbod (talk) 14:37, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
55. Strong support - I very much share Johnbod's hope above. Good luck! —
    WP:FINANCE! 14:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
56. Support one of the easiest supports ever. I've had nothing but positive experiences with Femke, she is an excellent editor and a great asset to Wikipedia. I am highly confident she has the experience and temperament to be an effective administrator. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:48, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
57. Support Good luck, and good job on those FAs! --Vacant0 (talk) 15:30, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
58. Support: Trustworthy candidate. Dr.Pinsky (talk) 15:52, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
59. Support - LGTM, Drummingman (talk) 15:55, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
60. Support Without a doubt. Haven't had the pleasure to interact yet I think, but I'm impressed by their contributions. --LordPeterII (talk) 16:11, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
61. Srongest possible support Femke has a deep grasp of our policies and a diplomatic temperament that will be huge assets to our admin corps. A decade or so ago (or maybe longer - it makes me feel old to count), the climate change topic area was a war zone on Wikipedia. These days the culture in this topic area is far more civilized and consensus-oriented, in large part due to Femke's influence. I hope that mop duty will be a pleasant diversion from her when she could use a break from content work, and not too much of a distraction from it. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:23, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
62. Support. We need competent academics in the admin team. Sandstein 16:25, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
63. Strong support. Femke is an excellent editor with a strong knowledge of policy and more than adequate experience on the site, and would be a huge asset as an admin. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:26, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
64. Strong support. Not merely knowledgeable and articulate, but constantly refers to and follows WP policies and guidelines, and consistently shows patience and respect for other editors. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:54, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
65. Support; excellent candidate. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:04, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
66. Support. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:09, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
67. Support Cabayi (talk) 17:11, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
68. Easy strong support - incredible content work and a very pleasant person to interact with - good luck ^^
    ^(talk) 17:26, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
69. Strong support. I'm shocked. I thought you already were an admin. Cielquiparle (talk) 17:33, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
70. Support, as a solid candidate, a solid editor, and someone with whom all my interactions have been quite great. jp×g 17:42, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
71. Support Trustworthy and experienced candidate, no concerns. Spencer^T•C 17:53, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
72. Support I see no reason to oppose and enough reasons to give them a shot. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:18, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
73. Support with pleasure! Modussiccandi (talk) 18:29, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
74. Support, precious --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:41, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
75. Support with thanks for volunteering. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 18:42, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
76. Support. Valuable contributor, no red lights,
    no big deal. — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:45, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
77. Support 100 % Polyamorph (talk) 19:01, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
78. Support Seen some of their excellent content work and it's good to have admins who focus on content. No evidence that any of their strongly held views would cause administrative conduct problems. Ovinus (talk) 19:11, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
79. Support. It definitely seems like she has the experience necessary to have the mop. CLYDEFRANKLIN 19:13, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
80. Support fine content work and good contributions at AfD and AfC, no reason to oppose Atlantic306 (talk) 19:42, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
81. Support The POV issues don't concern me as long she follows
    talk) 19:55, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
82. Support Elli (talk | contribs) 20:07, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
83. I have only had positive interactions with Femke over the past few years, particularly regarding the Core Contest and related activities. I don't think any of the issues raised in the "Oppose" section are especially disqualifying - on the contrary, she says: "I hope to contribute to non-climate-related reports at WP:AE, where long waiting times can be stressful for those involved." I am confident that she'll use the tools wisely, and I trust the judgment of her nominators. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:08, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
84. Support Sounds like a good candidate that won't abuse capabilities. effeietsanders 20:16, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
85. Support definitely.
    [majestic titan] 20:44, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
86. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:26, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
87. Support no concerns. Mccapra (talk) 21:32, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
88. Weak Support. The only issue would be the light AfD experience, which is concerning. Otherwise, the content creation is superb (multiple FAs!), the candidate has good AfC experience, and the CSD/PROD logs, while light, are all right. VickKiang (talk) 21:37, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
89. Support Obvious. //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 21:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
90. Support - Seems like a good idea -- not seeing any persuasive arguments to the contrary. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:49, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
91. Support – no concerns, I believe that Femke will be a great addition to the admin corps. –FlyingAce^✈hello 21:59, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
92. Support LGTM NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 22:37, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
93. Support Femke’s work with climate-related topics is superb. Her calm and professional demeanour in the face of conflict is something that we need in admins, especially those participating in
    WP:AE. Happy to support. HelenDegenerate(💬📖) 22:39, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
94. Support A good editor. Great work on Antarctica. It is often tougher to bring an article through FAR than FAC. Glad to support. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:24, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
95. Support Good editor. Why not? --JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 00:51, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
96. Support We need amicable editors with people skills who are good content creators.→StaniStani 00:56, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
97. Support No concerns -- ferret (talk) 01:23, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
98. Support
    talk) 01:33, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
99. Support Absolutely, no concerns whatsoever.
    Kablammo (talk) 01:36, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
100. Support Oh, yeah! Atsme 💬 📧 01:38, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
101. Support Not a jerk, NOBIGDEAL. HouseBlaster^talk 01:56, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
102. Support —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 02:25, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
103. Support, strong content creator, easily meets my criteria. GregJackP Boomer! 02:50, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
104. Support. I have worked considerably with Femke at
     Featured Article Save Awards in areas that were once highly contentious and combative. As Clayoquot expressed above, the editing environment in the areas where Femke works have become what they are now (pleasant and collaborative) because of her influence. I have seen her work through some very hairy messes, and I cannot ever recall seeing her lose her cool, her patience, or her professionalism. She will be a star admin, one of those you don't have to worry about. (And I'm pouting for missing being her 100th support after waiting all day.) Thanks for all you do, Femke, and thanks for putting on yet another hat. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:56, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
     ]
105. Support, I have a large amount of respect for this editor and think she will do great work in the admin departments. Seems like an editor will great judgment. —VersaceSpace 🌃 03:44, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
106. Support. I didn't recognize the name, but I certainly recognize
     ☖ 03:54, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
     ]
107. Support. I am not familiar with this user but the work Femke has done looks amazing. weeklyd3 (block | talk | contributions) 05:00, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
108. Finally. Vaticidalprophet 05:22, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
109. Support - clue + cool head = ideal admin EvergreenFir (talk) 05:23, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
110. Support No worries, per the noms and their work for the climate.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:32, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
111. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 07:42, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
112. Support, I have reviewed both the opposes and the general history here, and do not find any of the oppose rationales convincing. I am also happy to see a willingness to participate at AE—it's a tough area where few really want to tread, and we really could use some more voices there. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:10, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
113. No reason not to. /Julle (talk) 08:36, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
114. Suppport will clearly be a good addition to the ranks. Doug Weller talk 09:18, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
115. Support - Has proven to be a valued collaborator Graham Beards (talk) 10:00, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
116. Support (following clarification below on exclusionism) no major concerns. GiantSnowman 10:07, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
117. Easy support. Temperament, experience in contentious area, content experience. Trusted by people I trust.
     Martinp (talk) 11:29, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
     ]
118. Support Trust the candidate, trust the nominators. Easy decision. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:42, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
119. Support Good nomination. Gusfriend (talk) 12:24, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
120. Support for a fully-qualified candidate. Miniapolis 13:38, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
121. Support Net positive. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 13:56, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
122. Support Easy choice. Great nominators, awesome content work, has an idea of what she'll do with the tools. In response to the "oppose" votes, I hardly see how stuff like returning Earth to FA can be construed as an excessive political focus on climate change. Toadspike (talk) 14:33, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
123. Support no hesitatation. Saw the username and straight to the support section. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 15:02, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
124. Support Another net positive. GrammarDamner how are things? 15:20, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
125. Easy support, familiar with their work. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:14, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
126. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:19, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
127. Support. Anyone with the patience to do this kind of work on contentious, high-visibility vital articles has the patience to be an admin. (And I like her "About me".) -- asilvering (talk) 16:33, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
128. Support. --Ratekreel (talk) 17:14, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
129. Support. MER-C 18:44, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
130. Support. Relating to one of the opposes, I see Femke's academic credentials in the field of climate science as a positive. There's often a gap between academia and Wikipedia culture, which is a real shame as it's driven away more than a few academics who really could have been valuable here. Someone who has understanding from both directions will surely be able to do the project a lot of good as an admin. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:47, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
131. Support absolutely! — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 19:41, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
132. Trustworthy, competent. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:15, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
133. Support - Good editor who creates good content (so isn't just in it for the tools or the background noise on Wikipedia) and absolutely seems to have the trust of the community. - Aoidh (talk) 23:48, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
134. Support. No concerns. BD2412 T 00:51, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
135. Support - Nythar^T.C 02:32, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
136. Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:09, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
137. Support Dhoru 21 (talk・contribs) 05:58, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
138. Support Excellent temper and handling of complex articles, disputes, and policy compliance on popular articles. Sennecaster (Chat) 07:29, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
139. Support Obviously talented and with the right temperament, thanks for offering. Girth Summit _(blether) 07:56, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
140. Support. I've seen her work on climate articles and am impressed by her ability to navigate what is an often contentious topic area, particularly as a subject-matter expert. She's demonstrated the right temperament and decision-making skills for the mop, and deserves the position of community trust. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 09:40, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
141. Support: Not a jerk, has a clue, and her extensive content and anti-fringe work shows that she can work well with other editors. W. Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_c) 12:57, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
142. Support. We need more. Jacona (talk) 19:07, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
143. Support, good candidate with stellar qualifications. Andre🚐 19:34, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
144. Support Duh. Brilliant editor in a difficult subject area. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:11, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
145. Support Skilled user.`~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 03:12, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
146. Support Why not? -FASTILY 04:55, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
147. Support JarrahTree 05:50, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
148. Support  Spintendo  06:59, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
149. Support - looks good Kpddg ^(talk) 12:52, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
150. Support - For what it's worth, I think that primarily editing articles in a field in which one has strong opinions is a risk mitigated by strict andherance to good sourcing and npov representaiton of the scientific consensus which this editor does scrupulously. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 13:01, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
151. Support - looks legit for an admin. Good luck.
     talk) 14:26, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
     ]
152. Support - Yes Femke for admin! She has been a great asset for the UK and Dutch Wikimedia communities and her cross-wiki curation of climate content (climate change portal) has been invaluable. Deryck C. 16:59, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
153. Support -- EN-Jungwon 17:00, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
154. Support - looks like a very good candidate. Andrew Gray (talk) 17:11, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
155. Support Why not? --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:26, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
156. Support I can't find any issues in their record, and they appear to meet most of the criteria I look for in prospective admins. The opposes are not persuasive. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:45, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
157. Support Great candidate. Stuntneare (talk) 19:35, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
158. Support --Jack Frost (talk) 20:28, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
159. Support Quality editor who will be a quality admin. Equineducklings (talk) 00:36, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
160. Support I believe editors can have a point of view in an area while working constructively and giving space to differing opinions. Ther positive references from other admins persuaded me. 🌊PacificDepths^talk|contrib 05:15, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
161. Support LGTM --DannyS712 (talk) 06:56, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
162. Support Excellent content work and ringing endorsements by very well respected editors. Would be a great admin. – DirkJandeGeer щи 12:04, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
163. Strong support Bumbubookworm (talk) 12:38, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
164. Support. Not only does Femke seem like a suitable candidate, but she is multilingual and works across sister projects as well (like me!). A net positive for sure. ✗plicit 12:47, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
165. Support I usually prefer to see a bit more work in "adminny" areas but I their judgment and that of the noms.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:15, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
166. Support Looks like a strong, dedicated editor. Skynxnex (talk) 14:09, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
167. Support Clearly someone who should be an admin—blindlynx 19:06, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
168. Support. :) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:00, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
169. Support - Suitable. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 20:30, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
170. Support. Femke is a great editor with an enviable record of content work. I've been fortunate to chat with her at several virtual meetups and am always impressed by her insight and breadth of knowledge. the wub "?!" 20:36, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
171. Support >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 20:40, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
172. Support will be a net-positive to the project.
     « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:30, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
     ]
173. Support - Great candidate MaxnaCarta (talk) 03:09, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
174. Support This editor is an excellent content creator who has shown good understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and a level-headed approach to communication with other editors. Those who oppose the nomination have failed to produce any convincing evidence of problems. Doing excellent work in a specific topic area is not evidence that this editor would misuse the tools. Cullen328 (talk) 04:23, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
175. Support - per Nosebagbear and the noms. Beccaynr (talk) 04:42, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
176. Support. Good luck! — sparklism ^hey! 08:01, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
177. Support. More candidates like this one, please!
     ed. ^put'r there 08:49, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
     ]
178. Support. It's all been written above. I'll just add per User:Cullen328. Donner60 (talk) 14:17, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
179. Support --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 15:22, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
180. Support - Liked her piquant answers as it looks like she knows what's up! Visioncurve^{Timendi causa est nescire} 16:01, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
181. Support Ruy (talk) 17:13, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
182. Support – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:28, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
183. Support without hesitation – Femke has good understanding of production of content on wikipedia.....which is what it's all about really. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:11, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
184. Support! Arado Ar 196 (C✙T) 08:22, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
185. Support great candidate for adminship. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:37, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
186. Support with no real concerns. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:42, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
187. Support - Confident about the user after reading all the responses above.--NØ 09:56, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
188. Support mostly for generally good work, but also for answering that they have worked
     fringe content, and for the eccentric reason of wanting to be an honest well-informed deletionst at AFD, when AFD has become largely the spam filter. Robert McClenon (talk) 10:10, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
     ]
189. Support - per many of the comments above. Parsecboy (talk) 14:21, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
190. Support. I am pleased that there will not really be a question here, but I'll add that the oppose !votes are utterly unconvincing. Per votes above, an easy yes. agtx 14:48, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
191. Great candidate Volten001 ^☎ 18:38, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
192. Support - No concerns here. Great editor whom I'm sure will be a great admin, Easy support. –Davey2010^Talk 18:56, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
193. Support. SWinxy (talk) 21:55, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
194. Strong Support. Uricdivine^TalkToMe 22:32, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
195. Support Femke seems a knowledgeable and engaged contributor to Wikipedia, a great candidate for adminship. Ddab (talk) 00:03, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
196. Support. Seen her around and it's all been good. I feel very fortunate to have such a qualified candidate up for consideration. Hope to see more Femkes or even Femke-lites apply soon. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:30, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
197. Support The best content creators make the best admins. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:27, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
198. Support — Femke has done high-quality work on some of the most important Wikipedia articles, and her work outside the main space shows a calm and level-headed approach. She will do more than just fine with the administrator toolset. Good luck! — The Most Comfortable Chair 05:51, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
199. support. my previous interactions with Femke have been favourable, and nothing in this rfa raises any serious concerns for me. dying (talk) 06:24, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
200. Support why not :D Justiyaya 07:10, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]