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

SarahStierch[edit]

Final: 217/0/2. Closed as successful. WilliamH (talk) 00:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nomination[edit]

SarahStierch (talk · contribs) – Sarah has been editing since 2006, with a lot of great content work under her belt. Her outreach work with the Smithsonian Institution Archives and the Archives of American Art has led to the creation of many useful articles in art history, museum-related topics and biographies. She has also worked hard to increase representation of women in Wikipedia articles and has also put in a lot of time supporting new editors and helping people through OTRS. When a newbie is in distress, I trust Sarah to welcome them, help them and put them at their ease without compromising on the expectations of quality that Wikipedia has. With access to the powers of the mop, she can continue welcoming newbies and guiding them carefully regardless of what they get up to. I can't see any reason why Sarah would get into any major scrapes given her experience and cluefulness. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Co-nomination[edit]

I've had the pleasure of meeting Sarah in person a few times now. I can say that what you see on Wikipedia is what you'll get in real life, a lot of spunk, a lack of bullshit, and an infectious level of enthusiasm. On-wiki, Sarah has been elbow-deep in the creation of three GA's and several DYK's. She has been the driving force behind the WP:TEAHOUSE pilot project that seeks to do something about our ongoing editor retention problem. Her OTRS work, and maybe more importantly, her GLAM activities, make her a true advocate for this project out in the off-line world. She could be more useful with the mop, in almost everything she does, and I hope you'll join me in supporting her. Courcelles 00:09, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Thank you Tom and Courcelles for the kind words. I accept this nomination. Sarah (talk) 00:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

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: I really enjoy repetitive tasks, and clearing out backlogs - something I do frequently with disambiguations and OTRS. Admin work I'm interested in doing includes:
  • WP:AIV I have experience in reporting IP’s and named accounts that do so, and often there is a small backlog. It’d be great to be able to handle this myself without having to wait while the account continues to vandalize!
  • WP:RFPP As someone who has requested a few in my day, I’d like to make sure things are protected as need be (and within policy) as quickly as possible.
  • As an OTRS agent this would be very beneficial - to be able to view deleted articles and media that may have been deleted before their permissions were granted. Depending on the backlogs, there can be a ton of these on OTRS, and I’d rather be able to handle it myself than provide a list of content for other admins to undelete for me.
  • I'd love to know more about what areas of backlog need cleaning. Just ping me and let me know, perhaps something will strike my fancy!
And with all administrative tasks - I will thoroughly educate myself, and seek input from others before venturing into a new area of mopping!
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: First, my work with GLAM-Wiki outreach (GLAM=galleries, libraries, archives and museums outreach), which was the major catapult for me getting more involved in the community. GLAM WIKI As former Wikipedian in Residence at the Smithsonian Institution, I have worked with the community to improve content about underrepresented subjects such as women and minority artists. Two articles that I developed became GA’s - Louise Nevelson and Wadsworth Jarrell - which remain two of my proudest contributions.
I also co-founded WikiProject Public Art, which has developed hundreds (if not thousands) of articles related to public art around the world. Related to that, I singlehandedly created List of public art in Washington, D.C., List of public art in Indianapolis, and other lists, and I’m currently working on a list for San Francisco, California. Right now I’m working in my userspace to develop the entire list of California Historical Landmarks into digestible charts like the National Register of Historic Places for Wiki Loves Monuments.
I also am proud of my ability to take care of OTRS backlogs related to Wikipedia such as image permissions. I knocked out about 200 in a two day period. I was honored to receive barnstars for that from a few OTRS agents for my efforts! I also add a lot of images to articles in many different languages Wikipedias, often images donated by GLAMs. It’s enjoyable and makes me happy to illustrate content with beautiful quality images.
Another proud moment was the development of the Teahouse. I created the concept for the Teahouse based on discussions with many community members, seeing a need for a different type of help space. I’m really proud of it, and I feel so honored to have co-developed it alongside community members. I’ve also done a lot of outreach to get women involved in our projects, including WikiWomen's History Month and a number of meet-ups in the Washington, D.C. area. I also was on the planning committee for Wikimania 2012, and will be for 2013.
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: Like many active, long time editors, I have had moments of conflict. My first major “thrown for a loop” situation involved maintaining and watching articles related to men's rights subjects. This caused a lot of unnecessary problematic situations for people on Wikipedia and off. I found just simply asking experienced Wikipedians - many who are admins - for help on how to cope and handle situations of conflict was the best thing to do. I took advice from them and learned how to sit down and have a cup of tea, or just call in admins to help out and mediate things. I also learned to not edit subjects that are inherently contentious, especially after that fiasco! I’ve also had a few bumps in the road related to how I feel about civility and behavior on Wikipedia. For me, being nice is easier than being mean, and sometimes I’ve had a hard time with how people have acted towards others. Occasionally I’ve reacted, but, the longer I am involved in the community, the easier it is for me to ignore the negativity and call for calm, and move on. Or ask for mediation. Or, in many cases - just ignore it!
The biggest annoyances I deal with nowadays usually stem from vandals on certain pages I’ve created (topics that aren’t even popular, go figure), and even then I just request page patrol. But, those situations are small gnats which don’t really overshadow the more positive projects I work on.
Additional question from Carrite
4. Have you ever edited Wikipedia under any other user name? If so, what are the names of these accounts?
A: My former username is User:Missvain, a while back I had it changed to my current username. But, I have not used another account. Sarah (talk) 16:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. Carrite (talk) 03:00, 22 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Additional question from Callanecc
5. This scenario, I believe, is something which you may encounter as an admin. Please read the following and answer the questions.
An IP user completely changes a large section of a non-BLP article on a living from being unreferenced to completely referenced. However on the talk page, the community has a consensus to use the unreferenced information. Acting with this consensus, an experienced registered user manually uses rollback (with default edit summary) to revert the change and issues a ((uw-vandalism4im)) warning (just the template by itself) to the IP user (the IP user has made 10 edits for 6 different pages all of which were good edits). The IP user asks the rollbacker (on the rollbacker's talk page) to explain why they reverted the referenced edits.
Following the rollback & warning and request for the rollbacker to explain their actions (which after an hour of the rollbacker being active on Wikipedia hadn't yet been answered), the IP user undid the revert and added the referenced information back. The same registered user rollbacks again, and leaves a duplicate 4im warning and IP asks the rollbacker to explain their actions again. After another hour of the rollbacker not responding to the IP (during this time the rollbacker is still active on Wikipedia), the IP adds the information in again. The rollbacker uses rollback then reports the IP to WP:AIV.
You see the request at AIV; outline all the steps you would take, and the policy basis for those actions.
I suggest that you structure your answer in the following format (but it's completely up to you): (a) request at AIV (decline/accept, any other actions, and why); (b) the revert including use of rollback, warning, unanswered message on rollbacker's talk page, possible 3RR vio (for all - implications, your actions and policy basis); (c) change to the article (your actions (and possible actions) and policy basis).
A: Hi Callanecc. This is a complex question for me, as I'm one to seek help and assistance when needed - and since I'm not even an admin yet, if I do become one, something like this would be a sitaution I'd sure seek input about from a number of different admins across the board to see ("What would that admin do?"). Just being honest (which is a curse and a blessing! )! So let's give this a go..

If I saw a request like this at AIV I'd be highly concerned. To see that a rollbacker isn't explaining their actions to a good faith IP, it'd trigger me to ask - is it right that this rollbacker even filed this complaint? Perhaps it's the IP that should be doing the filing. Depending on how big of a can of worms I feel like editing, I might accept it. If I do accept it..

Assuming that the rollbacker states that the article has been declared "ok" as being unreferenced, I'd explore if there is something yet to be sorted out at that article. What is "consensus" for this article? Did only three people perhaps declare that the article should not be cited and no RfC was filed? Are the participants good faith editors? Investigation into the article and it's history would be important. I already think it's weird that the "consensus" voters state that the article doesn't need citations - to me, that goes against what Wikipedia is aiming for. Learning more about this on the talk page is important, which maybe leads to raising a request for comment. And if necessary - perhaps seeking the article be placed on probation.

I'd also be seeking communication with the rollbacker - why weren't they being inclusive of the IP's good faith edits and also of the IP's query about the rollbackers reverts? Depending on their response, this could very well lead to a block (a short period, probably 24 hours) - serving as a polite slap on the hand along with a few tips on how to be inclusive of IP's and new editors. (And perhaps that stems from my own personal passion for making good faith IP's into good faith named contributors!!) I probably wouldn't block the IP - the IP most likely has no clue about the 3RR rule and was acting in good faith out of sheer confusion and frustration. I'd then reach out to the IP and if possible, explain to them the situation in as simple language as possible and encourage them to be involved in the conversation on the talk page. Asking them to explain their contributions and their intentions regarding the resources used. I'd encourage the IP to also create an account. We'd explore moderation on the talk page, and hopefully positive outcomes will come out of it through RfC, the IP's inclusion on the talk page, and the rollbacker learning how to be more inclusive. Sarah (talk) 03:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also see discussion on my talk page. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 05:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Additional question from LuK3
6. When should an article be indefinitely semi-protected?
A: Hi LuK3! An article might be indefinitely semi-protected if an article is the recipient of excessive vandalism. Or, if the article is perhaps suffering from policy violations persistently - for example, a BLP (say...everyone's favorite, Justin Bieber) has content being modified that is either, for example, promotional of the subject ("Best singer ever!!") or negative untrue content about the subject ("He sucks eggs!!"). Then we can indefinitely semi-protect it. Sarah (talk) 16:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sarah, just a follow up question. For an article to indefinitely semi-protected, how many times does it have to have been semi-protected in the past (if at all) and for how long does the previous protection have to have been for? Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 07:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi. The only documentation I could find states that "Pages that are indefinitely semi-protected must have been semi-protected previously. This shows that the problem is ongoing, and that temporary semi-protection does not have a lasting effect." Which shows like it could have been semi-protected once, but I'm sure it depends on the subject. Perhaps it's the classic "Wikipedia documentation fail" that doesn't quite show a specific number. Sarah (talk) 08:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's exactly the response I was after - for the record I like that there isn't a specific number as it allows admins to use their discretion. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 09:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Additional question from TCO
7. Write two structured paragraphs describing your content contributions.
A: Hi TCO! Thanks for asking to learn more about my contributions content wise. A large portion was already covered in my original required answers, but, I can elaborate a bit more here about some things. A large portion of my content work revolves around fine art, women's history (generally biographies), and cultural heritage. Sometimes I get on a kick of writing about places I've visited...like a more recent collaboration which resulted in a DYK for The Alley (bar) in the town where I live now, Oakland. That was a fun article to write! One of my biggest passions, however, is writing content about notable yet "not as a famous" people. Often these are women or minority artists, scientists, historians, or things about birding (yes, birds!). A lot of this was inspired by the work I did as Wikipedian in Residence at the Smithsonian Institution Archives and Archives of American Art. All of the archival writing on their websites is public domain, allowing for an amazing wealth of content to be utilized to create interesting articles. Some of my favorite articles I've written or collaborated on regarding bios include Myra Keen, Valerie Solanas (which if it succeeds, will mark my 4th GA), Isabel Pérez Farfante, Jackson Miles Abbott, and Wadsworth Jarrell (a GA). The latter is very personal for me - Jarrell is an artist I research personally (I'm a curator by trade) and after I wrote his article his daughter actually wrote me (I had never met her) and now we keep in touch.
I'm also a big fan of lists! Perhaps it's a way to satisfy some OCD aspect of my personality! I've created lists such as List of public art in Washington, D.C., which took me months to complete. I also created a similar list for my hometown, Indianapolis, my sisters hometown Tampa, and more. Public art is another research area of mine professionally, so it only seems natural to fill in red links and document artworks in the public landscape when I can. I also created List of women in the Heritage Floor alongside a group of other users, to document The Dinner Party, an artwork by Judy Chicago of whom I wrote my thesis about. I feel like one of my roles as a Wikipedian is to memorialize people and subjects that might otherwise go ignored despite their contributions culturally. I hope this has provided you some more insight about my contributions.
Additional question from Osarius
8. When blocking a user for vandalism, how would you decide the length of the block and why?
A: Hi there! Thanks for asking a question. The length at which one would block a user depends on the severeness and frequency (if any) of their behavior or actions. If an editor acts disruptive multiple times (i.e. enough to warrant many warnings and a final warning!) then they may be blocked for 24-hours, with option for extension (i.e. one week, one month) depending on the frequency and severeness. If an account is only for vandalism or an editor is notoriously disruptive, and perhaps has been blocked before, an indefinite block may be warranted. Or - perhaps they just did one really really really terrible thing and that warranted them an indefinite block (i.e. I've seen generally well behaved editors flip overnight and out someone or going crazy and be blocked for a year or more!). I hope this answers your inquiry :) Thanks again, Sarah (talk) 01:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good! Just what I like to see, just another follow-up question for you Sarah: An article is created with lots of content, images and infoboxes in the correct style etc, but the original author doesn't add any references at all. A user open a AfD for the article, stating "Unreferenced, possible hoax". Many editors are for deleting the article per nom, but at the last minute before you delete the article, the author places a few good sources in the article. What would your next step be, and what (if anything) would you say to the author? Osarius Talk 09:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Osarius! Even "consensus" can be "misinformed," so to say. For me, every deletion I am involved in involves me doing a bit of research to get familiar with the topic, if at all possible. As a researcher in my "real life" I think it's an imperative task of anyone involved in AfD's, though it's not a role you see often. (Many people just nominate things, often things and subjects they are *not* familiar with!) First, kudos to the editor for adding in reliable sources - I'd take a look at these sources, familiarize myself with the subject, and think - reliable sources are here, if the article is neutral and written in good faith, does it meet WP:GNG? If I feel that it does - I might step away as a closing admin and argue the case for keep. That's one of the main goals of an AfD - who can make a valuable argument with the right sources to back up their case? I would also inform them editor of the article that I have commented on the AfD. I think it's also their role to step up and fight, of course! I'd like to think that the community would take these arguments into consideration, and that whoever is the closing admin does as well. SarahStierch (talk) 15:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Additional question from Jorgath
9. Please state your interpretation of WP:ADMINACCT and WP:WHEEL. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 20:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A: Hi there Jorgath! WP:Wheel is pretty to the point - the community frowns upon administrators wheel warring in regards to administrative actions. It's disrespectful to do so - just like any type of excessive reverting (i.e. 3RR) - and as with all things in Wikipedia, discussion is the key to creating a healthy, inclusive environment which aims to create the world's free encyclopedia. Accountability is pretty clear and also something I agree with - online and offline! In theory, to be trusted by the community to utilize administrative tools shows that that Wikipedian is mature, and able to clearly communicate and act responsibly. Administrators are leaders, and if leaders cannot be responsible and accountable for their own actions, how can they expect others to be respectful, and responsible and accountable for their own actions. SarahStierch (talk) 21:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

General comments[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. As co-nom. Courcelles 00:25, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Support As nominator. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Support. Everything I've seen of Sarah has all added up to tell me that she'll be a solid addition to our corps of admins. Smart, helpful, and expends more energy in one day to work for the good of the project and the movement than most of us have mustered in the past week. My one concern is that Sarah's sometimes-forceful personality might get her into some clashes, but there's also plenty of evidence through her work in places like the Teahouse (and her answer to Q3) that she recognizes that everyone can't know everything and that there's value to be found in consulting other people or having a cup of tea before acting or speaking in a contentious situation. So there's my advice to you, Sarah: when this RFA passes, as I hope it will, don't forget that you don't have to do everything that needs doing, and don't forget to make use of the brains (mmm, braiiiins...) of your fellow editors when you hit something new.

    P.S. Curiosity drives me to ask - have we ever had a WMF fellow run for adminship during the period of their fellowship before? I know we've had admins who then became fellows, but the reverse doesn't ring any bells in my memory. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:39, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  4. Support Everything I've seen about Sarah's contributions has been very impressive, and I'm sure that she'll make a good admin. Nick-D (talk) 00:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Support Great work on content and with outreach endeavors. No concerns. --IShadowed 00:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Support. OTRS contributions look solid; AFC contributions look solid; Wikipedia- and talk-space posts are calm and well reasoned. Why not? Someguy1221 (talk) 00:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. Yup. -Scottywong| soliloquize _ 00:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Support I've worked with Sarah at the Teahouse and she's a hard worker and very approachable to both new and experienced editors alike. I see no reason to oppose. -- Luke (Talk) 01:00, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. Support Of course. It will be great to see you continue your work with the extra tools. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  10. Yes, definitely. Words can't describe the level of my support. Steven Zhang Get involved in DR! 01:04, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  11. Oppose Has poor choices of bars. Strong support – I don't need to explain why she wouldn't pass,. She is the queen of outreach and a fun character. Mitch32(There is a destiny that makes us... family.) 01:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  12. Support AGF the noms and I've seen Sarah around and never had any concerns.--v/r - TP 01:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  13. Great to see you here, Sarah. Thanks for your work at the Smithsonian. - Dank (push to talk) 01:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  14. Support, a valuable contributor with a strong presence on a number of different projects. -CTS talk 01:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  15. Oh my goodness yes Ryan Vesey Review me! 01:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  16. Support. At Wikimania, I asked Sarah what things we could learn about approaching new editors, general principles she had put together after months on the Teahouse project. She spoke with a great passion, an inspiring message to everyone in the room. That personal interaction, combined with my general sense of her from the answers above, move me to support. She has the clue for the job and the independent thinking needed of all admins. Best of luck, Lord Roem (talk) 01:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  17. Support great person, can't possibly do any harm with any administrator tools. Looking forward to seeing you on the far side. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:09, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  18. Support Great contributor in so many ways. More like her are needed. First Light (talk) 02:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  19. Support I only "discovered" Sarah through her work at the Teahouse, but since that time I keep seeing her work as a normal editor--and a good one at that. She certainly has personality, as Fluffernutter says, but Sarah would be a great addition to the admin corps. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 03:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  20. Support I first became familiar with Sarah's work in the OTRS photosubmission queue; it wasn't hard to miss, being that she was the only one working there at the time. What little I've seen since then, coupled with Tom Morris being a nominator (sorry Courcelles, it's nothing against you) leads me to support. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  21. Support I have not communicated with Sarah before, but I have seen the great work she has done over the years. We need well rounded admins and I think she got what it takes. Good luck! Tamsier (talk) 04:00, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  22. Support. Mad props. Sarah's a rock star. Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 04:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  23. Support She seems to be genuinely trying to help and is never afraid to outreach -- just what should never be turned down in admins today. Mysterytrey talk 04:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  24. Support Excellent contributions in the article space. A couple of extra tools should be helpful here. EngineerFromVega★ 04:45, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  25. Support - I seriously thought that she was an admin already. She has done remarkable work at teahouse and I see no reason to oppose such a beautiful candidate. — TheSpecialUser (TSU) 04:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  26. Support Sarah will be an excellent administrator.--MONGO 04:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  27. Support – No concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 05:00, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  28. Support - Teahouse work alone clears the bar for me. Carrite (talk) 05:10, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  29. Support. forsooth. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:04, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  30. Support. She must have very cool and proud parents. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  31. Support. Yes please - for all the reasons above. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  32. Strong Support; great teahouse work. ⇒TAP 07:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  33. Strong obvious support. Knocked out 200 OTRS requests in a two day period? Started the Teahouse for promoting editor retention? 50,000+ edits? Engaged museums like Smithsonian in the GLAM initiative? If there ever was a slam dunk, this is it. -- Fuzheado | Talk 09:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  34. Aye. I don't know this user, so I reviewed a random sample of her contributions (impression: personable and chatty) and then randomly selected one article of hers (Helena M. Weiss) to review for copyvios or close paraphrases (impression: follows Smithsonian Institute sources rather closely, but not so closely as to raise close paraphrase concerns). Support's a no-brainer.—S Marshall T/C 09:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  35. Support While I, unlike Tamsier above, can give no opinion as to her shape, and have h ad no interaction with her that I can remember, I've seen her name around and been impressed. I'm still more impressed by the info given here, and wonder why this RfA took so long to arrive. Peridon (talk) 10:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I was not thinking about that "well rounded" Peridon. Lol.Tamsier (talk) 19:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  36. Well, of course. Sarah is one of the most suitable people for the job. Harej (talk) 10:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  37. Support for the remarkable work done on Teahouse -- naveenpf (talk) 11:02, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  38. Support Why not?--Morning Sunshine (talk) 11:25, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  39. Support It is evident that Sarah has spirit, drive and dedication to the project and has already been serving well in roles that have helped groom her for adminship. She will do very well.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 11:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  40. Strong Support - I've had previous interaction with Sarah during a write-up for the Signpost and found her really personable and agreeable. She's done great work both on-Wiki and with the Foundation, and to be honest I thought she was an admin. Content work looks good, and Teahouse - though I've never participated - was a brilliant idea. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  41. Support - I believe she would be an excellent admin. Wikipelli Talk 13:05, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  42. Support - My interactions with Sarah from my time as a Teahouse host have never left me in any doubt about her ability to work well with other people, assume good faith, and act appropriately in all situations. I can only see her being a benefit to the project as an admin. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 13:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  43. Support. No worries. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 13:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  44. Support - Strong candidate based on OTRS and Teahouse alone. However has also made over 50,000 edits, and created 324 articles. Great editor will be good admin.E W 13:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  45. Support Lot's of article space work + great service in Teahouse. TheStrikeΣagle 13:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  46. Strong Support I finally got to meet Sarah at Wikimania, after watching what she did at the Tea House and other places. I recently urged a non-admin to apply for OTRS, and argued it wasn't necessary to be an admin to process OTRS requests. Which is technically true, but I watched my own activity through those eyes for the next few days, and realized how limiting that would be.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:00, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  47. Support She has not only been an important creator and improver of Wikipedia articles - she has actually helped to improve the Wiki project itself, via the Teahouse. Sounds like she will be an outstanding administrator. --MelanieN (talk) 15:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  48. Per my 8-ball. T. Canens (talk) 16:02, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  49. Sarah works hard for the wiki, knows the policies, and knows how to work well with others. We are lucky to have her as an editor, and will be lucky to have her as an administrator as well. LadyofShalott 16:04, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  50. Support Sarah's done a great job at the Teahouse and will be a fine administrator. Acroterion (talk) 16:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  51. Support Yah, she got a job at the Teahouse (maybe the owner or a waiter) --Ankit MaityTalkContribs 16:39, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  52. Support Well-committed to the project and I admire her efforts in improving the quality and quantity of art-related articles. --Jennie | ☎ 16:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  53. Support - Very tolerant of other users. Would be an all-knowing admin. Arcandam (talk) 17:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  54. Support - Squeaky-clean candidate with no block record in 6 years of editing. Toa Nidhiki05 17:15, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  55. Support I first interacted with Sarah a few weeks ago when she asked me to work with the Teahouse. I poked around a bit and found her to be incredibly knowledgeable about a wide range of policy, a great content contributor, and one of the most level-headed, hardworking Wikipedians I know. She'd make a wonderful admin - especially in explaining to newbies why their article got deleted. Keilana|Parlez ici 17:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  56. I've actually not seen her around (or otherwise I might have confused her with this long term editor (and administrator)), but everything looks good from what I've read so far. Her answers are well reasoned and I trust the judgement of both the nominators. Master&Expert (Talk) 18:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  57. Great editor. Two words suffice. benzband (talk) 19:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  58. Support. Good contributions. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  59. Support. She's already doing a wonderful job. Anything to help make it easier for her. -- Ϫ 19:51, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  60. Support Can't say it any better than above. —HueSatLum 21:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  61. Support - wonderful candidate. -- Dianna (talk) 22:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  62. Ayup - Good candidate, good work done in the past. Protonk (talk) 23:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  63. Support. Her contributions to the encyclopedia and the community just get stronger and stronger. I'm confident she'll be an asset to the cadre of admins. --Jgmikulay (talk) 23:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  64. Support! Long overdue. Sarah should be an admin. (can't say thanks enough for your help and inspiration in your work with the Smithsonian, gender gap outreach, teahouse, and more.) --Aude (talk) 23:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  65. Support. But of course - David Gerard (talk) 23:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  66. Support About as qualified as a candidate can be. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  67. Support. Outstanding editor. Sarah's work with the Teahouse and the Smithsonian have been inspirational. Gobōnobo + c 00:29, 22 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  68. Helpful and knowledgeable. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:39, 22 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  69. Support. Sarah's by far the most passionate and hard-working person I know, both on Wikipedia and off. LoriLee (talk) 00:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  70. Support - a great candidate who not only talks the talk, but walks the walk. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 00:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  71. Fantastic editor. —WFC— 01:00, 22 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  72. Support No concerns, great user. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  73. Support Oppose is convincingly unconvincing. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 01:26, 22 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  74. Support Per her founding of the Teahouse project. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 01:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  75. Support Courcelles says it all. I look forward to her having the tools, and cannot wait to see what good will come out of this. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  76. Support Very impressed by her work at the Teahouse, and between that and OTRS could put the tools to good use. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 05:11, 22 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  77. Support Nice, responsible user. Cheers, Riley Huntley talk No talkback needed; I'll temporarily watch here. 05:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  78. Hex Yes One of the best editors I know on the 'pedia --Guerillero | My Talk 06:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  79. Support per the answer to my question, on my talk page and the question 6 follow up. Thank you and good luck with the RFA. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 09:11, 22 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  80. Strong support Sarah has done magnificent work in many areas, including with the Foundation and starting the Teahouse. As Wikipedian in Residence good work has been done too. Incidentally, I'm surprised Sarah wasn't nominated years ago. Rcsprinter (shout) @ 11:29, 22 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  81. I added Sarah Stierch to my watchlist a long time ago; I'm glad I did...she seems like an awesome person, always willing to help and be friendly. Happy to support. Acalamari 11:52, 22 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  82. Support Good editor. Good luck :)--Chip123456 TalkContribs 11:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  83. Support Candidate would like to be an admin. Egg Centric 14:31, 22 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  84. Support - would be a real asset to the whole community GiantSnowman 14:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  85. Great contributor, and an impressive candidate. AGK [•] 14:48, 22 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  86. Support --A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  87. Support Sarah exemplifies the very best qualities of a Wikipedia editor, both in terms of content creation and in a welcoming, collaborative attitude. It has been a delight for me to assist at the Teahouse and observe the wonderful things she does there. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:23, 22 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  88. Support More such candidates please! Plutonium27 (talk) 19:10, 22 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  89. Support Seen her contributions, would be a good use of the tool. Thanks Sarah :-) -- ɑηsuмaη ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ 20:32, 22 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  90. Support The user seems to do lots of good work. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:32, 22 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  91. Obvious support She has a good head on her shoulders. Her work at the Teahouse has been pretty solidly amazing. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  92. Support: I had the pleasure to meet Sarah at Wikimania. I fully support RfA based on her contributions to the community. --Another Believer (Talk) 00:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  93. Oh good lord yes, one of the strongest RFA candidates I've seen in a long time. Secret account 01:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  94. Support Does good work and will continue to do so, as an Admin. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  95. Support: a very good candidate, doing exemplary work with welcoming and guiding new users. Pundit|utter 01:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  96. Support -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 01:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  97. Support Sensible, level-headed, friendly, communicative, good contributions, easy to support. Zad68 02:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  98. She's already a superb teahouse host. Communicative, helpful, great attitude - no reason to doubt she'd be a trustworthy admin if given the chance. Kilopi (talk) 03:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  99. Stephen 03:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  100. WP:100, review of contributions, Teahouse work, nominations. --j⚛e deckertalk 03:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  101. Absolutely. Should have been an admin years ago. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  102. Support. Sarah seems like she would make a great administrator. I probably would have answered Q5 differently, but she also showed a good deal of caution, indicating that she would study up before undertaking complicated situations like that one. I'm also happy that she works so well with new editors. We definitely need admins like that, and I hope she'll consider working with new users who got off to a bad start and are requesting to be unblocked. ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  103. Support Great candidate. I particularly like the new user/outreach/teahouse stuff. Good luck! — sparklism hey! 09:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  104. Support Never interacted with the editor before, but good answers to questions, with an impressive resume. Looked through contributions, no recent issues apparent. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  105. Yes. Obvious candidate. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  106. Certainly Never even considered Sarah as an admin because of the areas I've known her to work, but I've worked with her a lot and she exemplifies all the qualities I want in one. Plus, she gave me a kitten on Friday for being wonderful, she's obviously got good taste. WormTT(talk) 10:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Don't kittens eat worms? Deviously caballish. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Not when they turn... WormTT(talk) 10:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  107. Support Looks like you've got this one in the bag, Sarah! Osarius Talk 11:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  108. Support Looks good. Torreslfchero (talk) 11:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  109. Support. Absolutely. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 12:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  110. Support No issues here.—cyberpower ChatOnline 13:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  111. Risker (talk) 15:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  112. Strong support. Very well qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  113. Support Great contributions and history, so why not? Extra tools would fit well on their hands. Cheers! —Hahc21 15:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  114. Support of course! Doing an awesome job. Multichill (talk) 15:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  115. Support I can't immediately think of anyone who would be a better admin.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  116. Support She's a great GLAM advocate. My only concern is that she won't get enough sleep because she already does a lot of great work :p but there's plenty of coffee for that --AutoGyro (talk) 16:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  117. Support – She is communicative and appears to have a good attitude. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 16:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  118. Support - while her abuse of exclamation points frankly horrifies me, she has been a lovely asset to the community already and I see no reason why her having a batch of extra tools would do anything but help the project (at least so long as she doesn't try to overextend herself, but I'm not too worried about that). -— Isarra ༆ 17:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  119. Support. Surely an excellent addition to admin ranks. bd2412 T 17:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  120. Support. no-brainer. Trusilver 17:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  121. Strongest possible support I cannot think of a better candidate. Produces new articles, is exceptionally kind to newbies and us. Not to mention that she is a wonderful human being too!! I abuse exclamation points too! Sarah for President anybody? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Should be happening soon, Doctor! ⇒TAP 18:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  122. Support I get to support two great admin candidates in one day! It's been a while since I've done that! --Philosopher Let us reason together. 18:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  123. Support per nom. --John (talk) 18:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  124. Support - Sarah has my trust and confidence. In my capacity as an administrator and volunteer, not as an employee action. -Philippe (talk) 18:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  125. Support. As often happens, Tom says everything that's needed. Andrew Gray (talk) 18:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  126. Support. Her work at the Teahouse shows that not only is she kind to newbies, but she is also a hard, dedicated worker who can accomplish large projects. Brambleberry of RiverClan Mew ♠ Tail 18:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  127. No big deal. Keegan (talk) 19:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  128. Support I haven't seen her do anything except make positive contributions to the project on a number of different levels. —Torchiest talkedits 20:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  129. Support - This is an easy bandwagon support. Nom has a clean record and and excellent history of productive edits. I look forward to seeing you with the bit! ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  130. Support good work with new users. --Rschen7754 22:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  131. Support because I think she's great, and given where we are with this RfA there's really no need to say more. QU TalkQu 22:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  132. Support See the user contributions as well. Thats all the rationale needed in this case. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 22:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  133. I somehow missed Sarah at Wikimania, but her reputation precedes her. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  134. Support I've seen some great work and comments by Sarah, knowledgable and fairminded, will make an excellent admin. Dreadstar ☥ 23:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  135. Support She's not an admin already? She has so much experience with Wikpedians "In real life," my guess is she has a wider knowledge than most about how the community works things out regarding civility and reasonable behavior online. Just hope she'll still get to partake of food, sleep, and that big room with the blue roof called "sky..." Djembayz (talk) 01:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  136. Support. Looks like an ideal candidate. She's helpful, articulate, reasonably bright and thoughtful. She's experienced and seems trustworthy. Majoreditor (talk) 03:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  137. Support One of my favorite GLAMourous editors. Sarah is the kind of person who will never become a bull in a china shop when it comes to using administrative tools, and is exactly the kind of person we should be giving the mop to. Steven Walling • talk 04:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  138. Support - Sarah is crazy committed to Wikipedia and will do everything in her power to make it better. Nuff said! Accedietalk to me 04:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  139. Support Looks a goody. I won't be able to close this RfA, so very happy to support it. And welcome to WP:100. --Dweller (talk) 10:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  140. Support I like what I've seen. Chedzilla (talk) 10:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  141. Sure I think we can trust Sarah to do good work. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 10:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  142. Support, obviously. Kirill [talk] 11:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  143. Support - even if the Teahouse was ignored. This isn't a discussion about how great the Teahouse is (really, really great; by the way) but more on this particular editor, who is, more or less, everything we want in an Admin. Achowat (talk) 12:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  144. Extremely strong support - talk about your easy choices!!!! Sarah's one of the very best. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  145. Support, as trite as it is to say, I thought she was already. If not, by all means, let's fix that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  146. Support - Of course. Ceradon talkcontribs 15:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  147. Support no reason to think this user will abuse the bit. -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 15:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  148. Late pile-on support. I have no concerns, and I think you'll be a great admin. Keep up the good work! MastCell Talk 16:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  149. Strong Support. I don't recall ever interacting with SarahStierch before this RfA, but from what I've seen reviewing her contributions and her responses to questions, I think she'll be an absolutely amazing admin, and I wish we had twenty more just like her. Also, I love the Drama Llama on your talk page. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 21:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  150. Support Keepscases (talk) 22:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC) Moved to oppose. Keepscases (talk) 16:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC) Support Keepscases (talk) 17:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  151. Support - I hate the RFA process but I think Sarah has done an outstanding job and want to add to the WP:SNOW. Kumioko (talk) 23:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  152. Support. I don't know this candidate well, but answers to questions look good, and the strong work at Teahouse, GLAM and OTRS weigh heavily in her favor. I believe I can trust this candidate with tools. BusterD (talk) 00:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  153. Support with the greatest of pleasure. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  154. Support In every dealing I've had with Sarah I've been left impressed. I have no doubt at all that she'll be a great admin. - Bilby (talk) 01:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  155. Support While Sarah may be too busy to do lots of adminny stuff, the tools may be useful, and I have no qualms supporting her. Rich Farmbrough, 02:13, 25 July 2012 (UTC).Reply[reply]
  156. Support I don't know that I've ever cast a support vote in any RfA discussion in eight years, but I'll definitely say yes to this—of course she can be trusted and she's an asset to the project. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  157. Support. I've worked with Sarah at the Teahouse; she's an amazing leader. She produces lots of content. She's level-headed when problems arise. She's nice to people. She'll be a great sysop. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  158. Support - I have no problems here. Mlpearc (powwow)(Review me !) 04:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  159. Strong support per above. Graham87 06:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  160. Strong support I see absolutely no reason why Sarah shouldn't become an admin. I'm pleased with her answers, she's awesome if you meet her offline, and her work both on- and off-wiki is commendable. I can only support this nomination in the strongest terms. :) --Sky Harbor (talk) 06:21, 25 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  161. Support--石 (talk) 06:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  162. Support - An approachable user, more vibrant by helping editors, see Teahouse. Jonas'VM ☼ 13:41 25 July 2012 (UTC)
  163. Support Looks like a popular nomination with the overwhelming amounts of support! But still, I appreciate a user who has a heart of gold and a willingness to help. Minima© (talk) 08:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  164. Support We need a little more administrators who can work with newbies and help them, and SarahStierch would certainly be a good choice for that. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 10:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  165. Support Of course - "Mop please" Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} (Whisper...) 14:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  166. Support, absolutely; Sarah's work has been and will be invaluable. James F. (talk) 16:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  167. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  168. Her reputation may lag by 16 hours, but she gets my support. Glrx (talk) 18:47, 25 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  169. Support No problems that I can see, a good editor and I suspect she will make a very good admin PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  170. Support I see no reason to oppose. Michael (talk) 23:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  171. Support. Another no-brainer. The comments in the neutral section, although they express relevant concerns, are unconvincing - when they get the bit, users with Sarah's editing history will probably do more admin actions on-the-fly than many other 'active' admins. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  172. Support One of the new breed. Understands the common editor. ```Buster Seven Talk 03:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  173. Support Per candidate, per nom & co-nom. Wifione Message 03:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  174. Support Joining in the pile-on in support - solid candidate Skier Dude (talk) 04:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  175. Support. It's about time! Too bad about the reputation lag though ;) Kaldari (talk) 06:43, 26 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  176. Support Already amazing, sysop empowers more service to the community and many projects. DocTree (talk) 08:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  177. Support Don't know this editor well, but seems a good candidate. Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  178. Support. Sarah is a Wikimedia Foundation employee and staff community coordinator with suitable editing history. Blue Rasberry (talk) 10:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Note: I am not a staff employee, I am a Wikimedia Fellow, which is a funded, temporary position awarded to community members to work on projects developed by the fellow to improve Wikimedia projects. (AKA in four months I'll need a job!) :) SarahStierch (talk) 15:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  179. Support. We need more admins. Sarah is nice and trustworthy both in person and on wiki. So give her the mop and get moving! Deryck C. 11:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  180. Support - a very late pile on support. Sarah being a sysop will be of net benefit to WP. She has shown good judgement in every interaction I am aware of and is a great ambassador for this site. I do echo a number of comments above, in that I hope she wont spread herself too thin, but as far as I'm concerned there's no reason to doubt her capacity for admin duties--Cailil talk 15:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  181. Support - I am a newbie editor who had the pleasure of meeting Sarah at a recent Women's Edit-a-Thon in San Francisco. I found Sarah to be kind, compassionate and encouraging to newcomers such as myself. I consider her to be an asset to Wikipedia as an Administrator. Thank you very much. ChesPal (talk) 16:01, 26 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  182. Support - Seen her around here and there. No concerns. AlexiusHoratius 17:19, 26 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  183. Support - Sarah is committed, honest, trustworthy, and kind and welcoming to newcomers (including myself, in volunteer capacity). Siko (talk) 18:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  184. Support - pleasantly shocked you decided to go through RFA :) Kevin Gorman (talk) 18:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  185. Support SarahStierch appears to do an excellent job of welcoming new users and a huge amount of work elsewhere. She could be an extremely productive and helpful admin. Michael Anon (talk) 18:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  186. Strong Support. Absolutely - Sarah will make a fine admin. Honestly, I was surprised to see that she was not one already. Good luck! UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 19:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  187. Support. This editor is self-motivated and creative, taking the initiative to fill holes and find solutions. Adminship is just one step for Sarah... at some point there will likely be an RfB. Binksternet (talk) 20:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  188. Useful editor, I've enjoyed reading several of her articles. ϢereSpielChequers 21:19, 26 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Sound judgement and ample experience. No other cause for concern. AGK [•] 22:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    AGK, don't go crazy on us, too! You already !voted in support at #85! (GabeMc did the same thing at Berean Hunter's RfA!) David1217 What I've done 23:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I have indented the support. There have been a minimum of 4 dups in these RfA's :) Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Wait, I saw the ones of GabeMc, AGK, and Monterey Bay, but who was the fourth? David1217 What I've done 23:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Mystery trey. Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  189. Support Excellent editor, no concerns whatsoever. Oh, and tea is far superior to that other alternative! ;-) The Helpful One 23:21, 26 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  190. Support - hard-working, respected editor; happy to support. 28bytes (talk) 01:47, 27 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  191. Support - I have no concerns with giving this user the tools. She's convinced me that she could use the tools, and that she'll use them well, and that's what matters.--Slon02 (talk) 02:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  192. Support I'm convinced she'll be a good admin. Obviously very keen and supportive of others. --99of9 (talk) 03:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  193. Support I've been working with Sarah in real life and on-wiki for years, having first come across here with the Public Art project. Sarah is one of the Wikimedians I most trust and work with most frequently. Wittylama 04:13, 27 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  194. Support – Very good interpersonal skills, supportive, innovative, and collaborative. Boon for us that we are getting such a person for an admin. — Bill william comptonTalk 07:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  195. Strong support Her contributions for the Teahouse were of great help to many new editors. I agree that she's willing to be an admin. Good experience, good community approval, excellent work at the Teahouse, ... you're born to be an admin. Jedd Raynier wants to talk with you. 09:37, 27 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  196. Support As per Courcelles and the user is a Wikimedia Fellow and has been editing regularly since 2010.Feel the project will only gain with the user having tools.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:16, 27 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  197. VERY STRONG SUPPORT From both on-wiki and personal experience ... what are we waiting for? Daniel Case (talk) 13:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    We're waiting for WP:200, I think there's only 2 left to go at this point. Ryan Vesey Review me! 13:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  198. Support. Everyking (talk) 13:43, 27 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  199. Support- Qualified, has the community's support. Dru of Id (talk) 15:29, 27 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  200. Support. Looks like a good candidate. No concerns. --regentspark (comment) 15:30, 27 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  201. Support, Curses, edit conflicted with my WP:199 support and surprise surprise someone already jumped on the 200 (Also, you know, excellent candidate for adminship, fantastic people skills etc etc blah blah)--Jac16888 Talk 15:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  202. Support The only comment would be, why has this taken so long? ;) <3 heather walls (talk) 16:07, 27 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  203. support —DerHexer (Talk) 16:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  204. Support. Excellent work at the Teahouse. No concerns whatsoever. WikiPuppies! (bark) 16:55, 27 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  205. Support with no concern. KTC (talk) 18:45, 27 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  206. Support Amazing amount of work at Teahouse. Deserves the right.  Adam Mugliston  Talk  18:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  207. Support -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 18:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  208. Support Have often come across her wonderful work with new editors, tools will be safe in her hands--DBigXray 19:08, 27 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  209. Support - I've seen Sarah in action many times. She works hard, knows what she's doing, and shows sound judgement. Wikipedia needs her. - J-Mo Talk to Me Email Me 19:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  210. Support, but with a nod to the comments in the neutral section, so please do think about them. I'm surprised at myself for not having crossed paths with the candidate more than I have, outside of seeing welcoming messages to new editors. But having more admins who are smart and will also be kind to newbies can only be a good thing. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:34, 27 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  211. Support This can only be a positive for the project in my view, given my observations of her. Adminship is about trust with and need for the tools rather than whether they would necessarily use them at any and every opportunity. Orderinchaos 20:55, 27 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  212. Support I'm always happy to support potential candidates particularly this special highly qualified candidate! Great answers to all the questions given above. Sarah is a highly trusted and good faith member of the community and i too trust and respect her a lot. She has good knowledge of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and vast amount of experience in different areas of he project, specially Wikipedia:Teahouse. As RfA is the place editor's can express their views for the candidate which i too have given, but i also need to give some light on a pretty small but important issue for me. Sarah in April i was asking some highly experienced users i trust and respect including you for their review for my Wikipedia:Editor review/TheGeneralUser and had also asked you too ([1]) after which i got response from mostly everyone. It can be found in User talk:SarahStierch/Archive 14. Please don't get me wrong Sarah or anyone else for this matter but i was expecting for a reply and not necessarily a review for that as it was (at least for me) quite important because it was about what i do at Wikipedia which i am here to always improve and make it better. As many people say and expect that highly experienced users, admins and other functionaries give help and support to other users when asked/needed, I'm very sorry to say, but i was ignored. This is just a point i had to give which doesn't in any way affect that fact that you have all it takes to be an Admin with all the required experience and great track record at Wikipedia. You have my full support and i know you are and will always continue to be a great asset to Wikipedia community and the development of the project as a whole. All the best Sarah, i'm sure you'll do great both as an administrator and volunteer! TheGeneralUser (talk) 21:29, 27 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  213. Support I've observed and learnt from SarahStierch's interactions in recent months at the Teahouse. I think that her article space edits are what one would expect of an editor with such experience. I'm sure she'll be willing to help out as neccesary in any mopping up, while not being afraid to ask for advice if needed in some areas. Thumbs up. Congratulations on your WP:200! -- Trevj (talk) 22:21, 27 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  214. Support This support is obviously wholly unnecessary, but it is well deserved.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 22:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  215. Support Couldn't let a unanimous RfA go through without contributing! I'm very impressed with what I've read here and in Sarah's work. Vertium When all is said and done 23:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  216. Support An impressive candidate. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  217. Support Good user.Érico msg 00:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose[edit]
Collapsed unsupported allegation by blocked sockpuppet.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Oppose - Not very tolerant of other users. Would be just another know it all admin. --FourteenClowns (talk) 04:05, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Diffs? Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is a great example of the kind of oppose the vast majority of people agree should just be removed. Is there some reason we can't start here? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see absolutely no reason not to remove it. Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My point would be proven. If you aren't in an inner click on Wiki, you might as well go somewhere else. Public site for everyone? So not true. --FourteenClowns (talk) 04:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Two things; 1 it's spelled clique and 2, far more importantly, I don't see how you translate Wikipedia's motto into "I can make groundless attacks on people at RfA". The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:35, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sure your point would be proven... so please prove it. Making allegations of this nature - that the candidate can't "tolerate new users" - needs some sort of foundation. It's one thing to say that X candidate doesn't do enough content work, or doesn't have skills in key admin areas-- all things that are more substantive pieces of criticism. But, if you're going to say that someone can't deal with other editors, an attack on one's character, you need something to back it up. -- Lord Roem (talk) 04:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not very tolerant of other users? Uh...have you even seen the Teahouse? Steven Zhang Get involved in DR! 04:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is an undocumented criticism. Let it stand, alongside undocumented supports, as a monument to Wikipedia's intellectual standards. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 06:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Come on folks, just treat this !vote as it deserves - ignore it (as the closing crat will). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do not agree it should be removed. I trust that the 'crats aren't blithering idiots.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Leave the comment. Either FourteenClowns will make an effort to substantiate it, or s/he won't. Either way, the closing crat will give the comment all due consideration. It's up to FourteenClowns to make that due consideration something more than zero. LadyofShalott 16:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, but it's always a pity if an otherwise immaculate RfA gets tainted with a silly oppose. Drmies (talk) 18:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How about we carry on this discussion here and hope that, for once, something comes of said continuation of discussion. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい)
Normally I feel that everyone's entitled to their opinions, but when I see someone make one edit in 26 March 2012, and then show up for this RfA, and have those be the only edits of 2012, I get really, really suspicious. I'd be suspicious if it were in support to, mind you. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:29, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikipedia does not have a workable process to remove or otherwise deal with disruptive comments. That is the collective fault of each and every person to have commented in this RfA, myself included. —WFC— 00:55, 22 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is obviously trolling, but as much as I'd like to see it removed, that would be a slippery slope upon whih to embark. This RfA will surely pass with flying colors and even if it were somehow close, I can't picture any real weight being assigned to this oppose. That it has tainted an otherwise flawless RfA is indeed unfortunate. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
With all respect to my dear friend Drmies, this is not a taint on Sarah's RfA. The taint is on the troller. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose There is already an admin named Sarah. As such, candidate's signature is confusing and misleading. Keepscases (talk) 16:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC) Moved back to support. Keepscases (talk) 17:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

She recently changed it, see her signature here. Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Guess it's time to change a !vote. →TSU tp* 16:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please assume good faith. I have since changed my signature after being asked to do so by community members. I do sincerely apologize if I did confuse and mislead you, as it was not my intention. SarahStierch (talk) 17:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OPPOSE As per my personal rational. Irontaker (talk) 17:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Boldly striking off as this user has made no edits other then this RfA and an article once. Anyone is free to revert me if this is found to be inappropriate strike but as far as I see this acc is merely made to make this clean rfa with any oppose. TheSpecialUser TSU 17:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(edit conflict) I propose striking out this !vote given that this completely unexplained comment is the user's second ever edit. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:25, 27 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Would you have had the same response to a completely unexplained support vote from the same user? Malleus Fatuorum 17:35, 27 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Any RfA !vote from a user whose userpage and talkpage are both redlinks warrants careful scrutiny. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:37, 27 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've got to say, I'm fairly unimpressed with this and the stricken and hidden vote above. Sarah, and the community should be able to see full well how much confidence has been put in her, and whitewashing the opposes is unseemly. Yes, yes, they're just here to oppose, but what's wrong with that? A unanimous vote may be special, but a WP:200 with a sock needed to complain is even more special in my boat. WormTT(talk) 17:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm singularly unimpressed that you would not only choose to make up new rules as you go along, but impose them unilaterally on those whose opinions you disagree with in a pathetic endeavour to give Sarah a unanimous support vote. Hopefully she will display the integrity you so clearly lack and restore the vote. Malleus Fatuorum 18:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you're talking to me, I didn't actually do anything, just made a suggestion that it turned out via edit-conflict had already been acted on by someone else. In any event, though, it's always good to see your decorous and considerate language and sense of proportion on the RfA pages. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Making a suggestion is doing something. And I doubt you enjoy seeing my "decorous and considerate language and sense of proportion on the RfA pages" any more than I enjoy seeing your generous to a fault support of every candidate at RfA, the younger the better. Malleus Fatuorum 18:37, 27 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Folks, a mountain is being made out of a dirt clodd here. She has over 200 Supports and one (though be it a questionable one) oppose. It makes no difference, frankly we could close it now as WP:SNOW and be perfectly justified. Kumioko (talk) 19:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So who created the dirt clodd, and why? Malleus Fatuorum 23:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Neutral Normally, this would be a knee-jerk support from me, so I'm a little annoyed to find myself here. Having seen Sarah in action, I think that she's got a great attitude and adds a tremendous amount to the project. However, I feel like she's already stretched too thin. Small things like this already aren't getting the follow-through they need, and adding in admin tasks would (imo) just make things worse. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    At the risk of diminishing the role, admin powers are merely a set of tools, and admins continue to be volunteers. If the only thing an admin ever uses their bit for is to delete a speedyable article once a month, that's still distributing the work and saving someone else the trouble of doing it. I am therefore fine with an editor having admin powers even if they rarely have time to use them, so long as they do not use them irresponsibly. bd2412 T 17:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Please, feel free to diminish the role. Adminship is supposed to be no big deal, isn't it? - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 22:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I agree. With Sarah's current level of involvement, giving her the mop can actually reduce her workload because she doesn't have to stop and for help every time she stumbles upon something that needs protection, deletion or blocking. Deryck C. 11:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. I have actually the same impression as Dori. If the vote would be any close to contentious, I would definitely support. However, it is running smoothly, and I think my remark will be better visible in this section. Sarah, I think you are a great editor, I appreciate your GLAM work and I admire the way you interact with other users. I have an impression however that you are already overloaded and do not have any further capacities. This means if you sign up for some new work, either this work will not be accomplished and will have to be restructured in the middle (example: WLM US 2012), or you will have to stop doing smth else to accomplish the work. Even if this smth else is important and other people generally expect that you would be continuing doing it. Please take this seriously and I am sure you will be a great admin.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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.
Category